Precht v. Menard, Incorporated

Background

Catherine Precht and Quint Precht sued Menard, Incorporated, concerning Catherine’s alleged injuries. The opinion states that Catherine was injured on January 12, 2012, when she slipped and fell on snow-covered ice during a security walk outside a Menard store. The complaint asserted negligence and loss-of-consortium claims under Minnesota law.

Menard had entered into a 2007 service contract with Knight Security, Inc., under which Knight agreed to provide security services and personnel at the store. The contract required Knight to purchase liability insurance covering Knight and Menard for claims arising from Knight’s performance. It also required Knight to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Menard from liabilities, damages, expenses, claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising from Knight’s performance, regardless of whether Knight caused them. The contract specified that Wisconsin law governed its interpretation.

Menard filed a third-party complaint against Knight seeking contribution or indemnification for Precht’s alleged damages. Knight moved for summary judgment, asking the court to declare the parties’ contractual rights and dismiss the third-party complaint.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party must identify specific evidence supporting a genuine issue for trial.

Indemnification analysis

The court explained that Wisconsin generally does not interpret an indemnification agreement to cover an indemnitee’s own negligence unless the agreement expressly and specifically says so. Wisconsin law recognizes an exception when the parties’ purpose and unmistakable intent was to cover losses caused by the indemnitee’s own negligence. Requiring the indemnitor to purchase liability insurance, together with a broad promise to hold the indemnitee harmless from liability, can show that intent.

The court found it undisputed that Precht’s alleged injuries occurred while she was performing security services as a Knight employee. It concluded that the contract’s broad language plainly covered Menard’s alleged negligence because the liability arose from Knight’s performance at the store. The court also relied on the contract’s insurance requirement as evidence that Knight intended to indemnify Menard for this type of liability. Finding the contract clear and unambiguous, the court enforced it as written.

Disposition

The court denied Knight’s motion for summary judgment. It also ordered that Knight must indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Menard in the action.