This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a dispute over an indemnification clause in a contract between the City of Albuquerque and BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc. (BPLW) for the design and construction of a rental car facility at the Albuquerque International Airport. A pedestrian was injured after falling off a curb at the facility, alleging that the curb was negligently designed and constructed. The City sought defense and indemnification from BPLW under the contract, which BPLW refused, leading to litigation (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that BPLW had a duty to defend the City under the indemnification clause and awarded the City approximately $90,000 in attorney fees (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (BPLW): Argued that it had no contractual duty to defend the City because the pedestrian’s claims alleged the City’s direct negligence, not vicarious liability for BPLW’s actions. BPLW also contended that the indemnity clause contained an exception for claims arising from the City’s approval of designs or specifications, which applied in this case (para 6).
- Appellee (City of Albuquerque): Asserted that the indemnification clause required BPLW to defend the City against any claims arising from BPLW’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions, regardless of whether the City was also alleged to be negligent. The City argued that the pedestrian’s claims fell within the scope of the indemnity clause (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Did BPLW have a contractual duty to defend the City under the indemnification clause?
- Does the indemnity clause require BPLW to defend the City even when the City is alleged to be negligent?
- Do the exclusionary provisions of the indemnity clause relieve BPLW of its duty to defend?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that BPLW had a duty to defend the City under the indemnification clause (para 32).
Reasons
Per Fry CJ. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Duty to Defend Based on Contract Terms: The court held that the duty to defend arises from the terms of the contract and the allegations in the complaint. The indemnity clause required BPLW to defend the City against claims arising from BPLW’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions, even if the City was also alleged to be negligent (paras 8-12, 15-16).
Broad Interpretation of “Arising Out Of”: The court interpreted the phrase “arising out of” broadly, finding that the pedestrian’s claims, including those alleging the City’s failure to maintain the curb, originated from BPLW’s design and construction of the facility. Thus, the claims fell within the scope of the indemnity clause (paras 22-24).
Exclusionary Provisions Inapplicable: The court rejected BPLW’s argument that the exclusionary provisions of the indemnity clause applied. It found that the pedestrian’s claims did not arise from the City’s approval of designs or specifications but rather from BPLW’s placement and design of the curb in a hazardous location (paras 25-30).
Public Policy Compliance: The court determined that requiring BPLW to defend the City did not violate public policy under New Mexico’s anti-indemnity statute, as the indemnity clause only required BPLW to defend claims arising from its own negligence (paras 19-20).
Indemnification Not Addressed: The court clarified that the issue of BPLW’s duty to indemnify the City was not before it, as the district court’s decision was limited to the duty to defend (para 31).