AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Safeway, Inc. contracted Rooter 2000 Plumbing and Drain SSS to install a diaper changing table in a Gallup, New Mexico store. After the table dislodged and injured a customer and her child, the customer sued both Safeway and Rooter. Safeway sought defense and indemnification from Rooter under their agreement, which Rooter declined, leading Safeway to file a cross-claim against Rooter for breach of contract, common law indemnification, and contribution (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court: Granted Rooter's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Safeway's cross-claims based on the argument that the agreement was void under NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (1971, as amended through 2005) (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Safeway: Argued that the agreement for Rooter to indemnify, defend, and insure Safeway was enforceable and that common law indemnification should apply irrespective of the contract's enforceability under the statute (paras 6, 16, 26).
• Rooter: Contended that the indemnification agreement was void under the applicable statute, and therefore, it had no duty to indemnify, defend, or insure Safeway (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2003 amended version of Section 56-7-1 applies to the agreement between Safeway and Rooter, or if the original version at the time of the agreement's signing governs (para 6).
• Whether Rooter's agreement to indemnify Safeway is barred by Section 56-7-1 (para 15).
• Whether common law indemnification requires Rooter to indemnify Safeway independent of Section 56-7-1's effect (para 16).
• Whether the defense and insurance provisions in the agreement are barred by Section 56-7-1 (para 26).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment regarding Safeway's right to common law indemnification and the enforceability of Rooter's agreement to defend and insure Safeway. The court affirmed all other issues (para 31).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil writing, held that the version of the anti-indemnity statute in effect at the time the contract was signed governs, making the indemnification agreement unenforceable but not affecting the agreements to defend and insure. The court found that common law indemnification could still apply, allowing Safeway to seek full recovery from Rooter if found to be a passive tortfeasor. The court concluded that agreements to defend and insure were not addressed by the original version of the statute and were therefore enforceable. The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Cynthia A. Fry (paras 6-30).