From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Uniwest Const. v. Amtech Elevator Serv

Supreme Court of Virginia
Apr 21, 2011
281 Va. 509 (Va. 2011)

Opinion

Record Nos. 091495, 091496, 091521.

April 21, 2011.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing Circuit Court No. CL-2008-5909.


By unanimous opinion issued September 16, 2010, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County against Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., n/k/a ABM Amtech, Inc. ("Amtech"), ABM Industries, Inc., and AIU Insurance Company ("AIU") and remanded the case for further proceedings. 280 Va. 428, 446, 699 S.E.2d 223, 232 (2010). Thereafter, Uniwest Construction, Inc. ("Uniwest"), and Federal Insurance Company filed petitions for rehearing requesting the Court to consider "whether the underlying claims by Bruce and Stinson gave rise to `liability arising out of operations conducted by [Amtech] or on [Amtech's] behalf "and to "request that the Court make clear that a rinding of `relative liability' is not required with respect to E-7; instead, the finding on remand with respect to E-7 should be whether Uniwest's `liability [arose] out of operations conducted by [Amtech] or on [Amtech's] behalf. `"(Alterations in original.) By order entered January 18, 2011, the Court granted the petitions.

The questions presented by the petitions for rehearing were not reached by the circuit court because it erroneously determined that Uniwest was not an insured under Subdivision E-7 of Amtech's commercial umbrella insurance policy from AIU. Because the circuit court did not decide the scope or extent of liability under Subdivision E-7, the Court remands the matter "for consideration of the legal and factual efficacy" of the questions presented in the petitions for rehearing. Burwell's Bay Improvement Ass'n v. Scott, 277 Va. 325, 332, 672 S.E.2d 847, 851 (2009) (remanding for consideration of preserved questions preempted by the circuit court's erroneous holding on a threshold question).

Uniwest is an insured under both Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7 of the policy. 280 Va. at 445, 699 S.E.2d at 232.

The Court expresses no opinion as to whether relative liability is relevant to Subdivision E-7.

The Court withdraws Part 11(D) of its opinion of September 16, 2010. On remand the circuit court shall determine the extent of Amtech's liability to Uniwest for its failure to defend and indemnify Uniwest. The court also shall determine whether and to what extent AIU is liable under Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7, consistent with this Court's opinion of September 16, 2010, as amended, and this order. If the court determines that Uniwest and its insurers are entitled to an award of damages, consideration of such damages shall include both Uniwest's settlement with Bruce and Stinson and the cost of Uniwest's defense in the lawsuit leading to that settlement for which Amtech and AIU are liable, to the extent such costs have not yet been paid by Amtech and its insurers.

The question of Amtech's liability is settled: "Amtech [had] a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest," 280 Va. at 443, 699 S.E.2d at 231, "to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of" Amtech. Id. at 433, 699 S.E.2d at 225.

This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall be certified to the said circuit court.

A Copy,

Teste:

Exhibit

Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk.


Summaries of

Uniwest Const. v. Amtech Elevator Serv

Supreme Court of Virginia
Apr 21, 2011
281 Va. 509 (Va. 2011)
Case details for

Uniwest Const. v. Amtech Elevator Serv

Case Details

Full title:Uniwest Construction, Inc., et al. against Appellants, Amtech Elevator…

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Apr 21, 2011

Citations

281 Va. 509 (Va. 2011)
714 S.E.2d 560

Citing Cases

Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design, Inc.

Therefore, if the indemnification provision at issue here falls within § 11–4.1, then the provision is void…

Mulvey Constr., Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.

Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mulvey's subcontract agreement with…