I'm not sure if I am getting the correct information from this thread. Go to Findlaw and find the following case:
Daniel Ferguson (injured party)
v. Marshall Contractors (general contractor)
v. Ajax Construction (construction company)
FindLaw: Cases and Codes
Question: Can a general contractor of a construction project obtain indemnification for alleged negligence at the job site from an injured employee's subcontractor-employer in the absence of an express agreement between the employer and the general contractor providing for such indemnification ? The short answer to this question is NO. Read below:
It looks like the defendant, Marshall signed a contract, including an indemnification paragraph, with Bennington Iron Works to provide steel for a project.
Bennington in turn contracted with Ajax to do the steel construction work.
Ferguson (plaintiff) was an employee of Ajax when he was injured while working on the project. He collected workers' compensation benefits from Ajax but then brought suit against Marshall and Bennington for their negligence in connection with his injury.
The jury awarded Ferguson $1 million and Marshall had to pay that to Ferguson. Marshall appealed the verdict to a higher court, but they upheld the verdict. Marshall contends that it is a third-party beneficiary of an indemnification provision contained in the written purchase order between Bennington and Ajax. Ajax said the language is very clear: it asserts that the indemnification clause requires Ajax to indemnify the buyer, Bennington or the owner of the property where the work was to be performed.
Although Marshall contends that it does not seek indemnification for its own negligence, only for that of Ajax, IT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT NO INDEMNIFICATION CONTRACT OR OTHER SUCH AGREEMENT EXISTS BETWEEN AJAX AND MARSHALL. Rather Marshall bottoms its claim for indemnification upon a third party contract beneficiary theory and upon the law of agency. But the cases cited by Marshall in which the court upheld claims for indemnification are based upon EXPRESS AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE INDEMNITOR AND THE INDEMNITEE. Here Marshall's claim for indemnification from Ajax must fail BECAUSE THE PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE NO DIRECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM THAT SO PROVIDES, and nothing in the Bennington-Ajax purchase order contains an express promise by Ajax to indemnify Marshall.