Minnesota Court of Appeals rules in favor of Hammargren & Meyer's client in Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc. et. al and determined that the district court incorrectly dismissed the case.
In Minnesota Court of Appeals A11-159
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc., Appellant, vs. L. H. Bolduc Co., Inc., Respondent; The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Gregg E. Johnson.
Court's syllabus:
1. When a subcontractor agrees to indemnify and insure a general contractor for claims, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses arising out of bodily injury or property damage caused or alleged to have been caused by any act or omission of the subcontractor, the obligation is not limited to injury or damage caused by the subcontractor's negligence.
2. When neither an additional insured endorsement nor a commercial general liability policy limits coverage to claims arising from a subcontractor's negligence, coverage for a general contractor as an additional insured is not limited to such claims.
3. When an issue is not raised in an appellant's principal brief, a statement in a respondent's principal brief that an appellant does not challenge the district court's findings on the issue does not constitute the presentation of "new matter" that may be raised in appellant's reply brief.
Reversed and remanded; motion granted. Judge Stephen L. Muehlberg.*
Dissenting, Judge Francis J. Connolly.
MSBA Court Opinions by E-mail, a Minnesota State Bar Association
member service
