Indemnitor Not Liable to Indemnitee For Consequences of Breach of Contract Entered Into Post-Indemnification
HK SYSTEMS v. EATON CORPORATION (January 28, 2009)
IBP owned a large beef-processing plant in Nebraska. It wanted to replace its material handling system at the plant. Alvey and an Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) subsidiary submitted the successful joint bid. During the contract negotiations, Eaton sold its subsidiary to HK Systems, Inc. (“HK”). The contract of sale contained broad cross-indemnities. A month later, IBP and HK entered into a contract for the purchase of the system. IBP was not satisfied with the speed at which the system operated and sued HK in state court. IBP alleged fraud, based on a system-speed representation made by Eaton before it sold its subsidiary, and breach of contract, based on a system-speed provision of the contract. The suit was settled for $8 million, $5 million from Alvey and $3 million from HK. HK brought this suit against Eaton for indemnification. Eaton argued that HK’s loss had been caused by HK’s own actions, not Eaton’s. The court originally denied summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. A jury awarded HK $3 million. The court reconsidered the earlier motion for summary judgment and granted it. HK appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Evans affirmed. The Court first noted that there was nothing improper in the district court’s reconsideration of it summary judgment ruling. Eaton had not preserved its argument that HK was responsible for its loss in its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Although the doctrine of the law of the case normally counsels against a judge reconsidering an earlier ruling, the district court does have discretion to do so when it is convinced that its earlier ruling was wrong and no harm will result. Here, the Court observed that the trial judge ruled on the meaning of the indemnification clause, which he considered a question of law. On reconsideration, he ruled that Eaton was not liable for HK’s loss because the contract between HK and IBP was an intervening cause. The Court agreed with the district court’s view on reconsideration, although it preferred framing the issue in terms of responsibility rather than cause. In any multiple factor case, responsibility is determined by reference to policy. Sometimes intervening acts are enough to shield one from liability – other times not. The Court referred to the contract between HK and Eaton. It contained mirror-image indemnification provisions. If Eaton was liable to HK for certain losses due to its representations, then HK was liable to Eaton for the loss it suffered because of its act – signing the contract – that occurred after the sale. The Court found that the district court’s resolution of this dilemma by adopting a narrow reading of the indemnity was consistent with the Court’s earlier decision holding that an indemnity will normally not apply, without explicit language, to a breach of contract claim for a contract entered into after the indemnity. The Court explained the policy reasons for such a holding. A party is typically in control of its contracts and performance. One should not be able to insure or acquire an indemnity to protect against liability for a breach when the one most able to protect against a breach is the very person insured. Here, HK should have made sure that its new subsidiary was capable of performing its contractual obligations to IBP before entering into the agreement. It cannot shift that liability to Eaton.
