FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 24, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST,
INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 08-2225
(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00050-RLP-CG)
v.
(D.N.M.)
YEAROUT MECHANICAL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges, and EAGAN, ** District Judge.
Plaintiff - Appellant United Rentals Northwest, Inc. (United Rentals)
appeals the district court’s decision to grant Defendant - Appellee Yearout
Mechanical, Inc.,’s (Yearout) motion to dismiss. The district court ruled that
United Rentals could not seek indemnification from Yearout because the
indemnification provision contained in the parties’ equipment rental agreement
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable Claire V. Eagan, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
was unenforceable under N.M. S TAT . A NN . § 56-7-1. We certified a question of
law to the New Mexico Supreme Court and, based on the answer to the certified
question, we affirm the decision of the district court.
Background
United Rentals is an equipment rental company based in Oregon, and
Yearout operates a mechanical contracting service in New Mexico. Yearout
rented a scissor lift from United Rentals on March 1, 2006, and used the scissor
lift to perform duct work at the Eclipse Aviation Hanger at the Albuquerque
International Airport. The rental agreement, referred to as the “Rental Out
Contract,” included an indemnification provision:
INDEMNITY/HOLD HARMLESS. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW, CUSTOMER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY,
DEFEND AND HOLD [UNITED RENTALS] HARMLESS FROM
AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, CLAIM, LOSS,
DAMAGE OR COSTS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LOSS OF PROFIT, BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION OR OTHER SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES, DAMAGES RELATING TO BODILY INJURY,
DAMAGES RELATING TO WRONGFUL DEATH) CAUSED BY
OR IN ANY WAY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE
OPERATION, USE, MAINTENANCE, INSTRUCTION,
POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL
OF THE EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING WHENEVER SUCH
LIABILITY, CLAIM, LOSS, DAMAGE OR COST IS FOUNDED,
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, UPON ANY NEGLIGENT OR
GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION OF [UNITED
RENTALS] OR THE PROVISION OF ANY ALLEGEDLY
DEFECTIVE PRODUCT BY [UNITED RENTALS]. THIS
INDEMNITY PROVISION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIMS
ASSERTED AGAINST [UNITED RENTALS] BASED UPON
STRICT OR PRODUCT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION OR
-2-
BREACH OF WARRANTY.
Appellant’s App. at 24. On April 1, 2006, two Yearout employees were killed in
an accident when the scissor lift fell over. The personal representatives of the
deceased employees sued United Rentals and JLG, Industries, Inc., the
manufacturer of the scissor lift, under theories of strict liability, negligence, loss
of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. United Rentals
settled the claims against it for an undisclosed amount.
United Rentals filed this lawsuit seeking indemnification from Yearout
pursuant to the indemnification provision of the Rental Out Contract. Yearout
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit asserting that the indemnification provision
was unenforceable under § 56-7-1. Yearout argued that the rental agreement was
a construction contract within the meaning of § 56-7-1 and was unenforceable
under New Mexico law. United Rentals responded that § 56-7-1 did not apply to
equipment leases, even for construction equipment, because such agreements do
not relate to the construction, maintenance, or alteration of real property. The
district court determined that the indemnification provision was unenforceable
under § 56-7-1, and granted the motion to dismiss.
Standard of Review
We review a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss de novo.
Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co., Ltd., 555 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th
Cir. 2009). This is a diversity case arising out of New Mexico and we must apply
-3-
the substantive law of New Mexico. See Pompa v. American Family Mut. Ins.
Co., 520 F.3d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 2008). This Court reviews a district court’s
construction of a state statute under a de novo standard of review. Breaux v.
American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 554 F.3d 854, 863 (10th Cir. 2009).
Discussion
United Rentals challenges the district court’s decision that the
indemnification agreement in the Rental Out Contract was unenforceable under §
56-7-1. First, United Rentals argues that an equipment lease does not relate to the
construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real property and the Rental
Out Contract is not similar to the other types of agreements listed in § 56-7-1(E).
Second, United Rentals states that the New Mexico legislature enacted an anti-
indemnification statute specifically concerning the enforceability of
indemnification agreements in equipment leases, N.M. S TAT . A NN . § 56-7-3, and
argues that it would have been unnecessary to pass § 56-7-3 if leases of
construction equipment were covered by § 56-7-1. Lastly, United Rentals claims
that decisions from the highest courts of other states with similar anti-
indemnification statutes show that the majority of states do not treat equipment
leases as construction contracts under construction anti-indemnification statutes.
Under N.M. S TAT . A NN . § 56-7-1 (2005):
[a] provision in a construction contract that requires one party to the
contract to indemnify, hold harmless, insure or defend the other party
to the contract, including the other party’s employees or agents,
-4-
against liability, claims, damages, losses or expenses, including
attorney fees, arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to
property caused by or resulting from, in whole or in part, the
negligence, act or omission of the indemnitee, its officers, employees
or agents, is void, unenforceable and against the public policy of the
state.
The statute defines a construction contract as:
a public, private, foreign or domestic contract or agreement relating
to construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of any real property
in New Mexico and includes agreements for architectural services,
demolition, design services, development, engineering services,
excavation or other improvement to real property, including
buildings, shafts, wells and structures, whether on, above or under
real property.
Id. at § 56-7-1(E). The plain language of the statute does not expressly include an
equipment lease within the definition of the term “construction contract.” Section
56-7-1 defines an agreement “relating to construction, alteration, repair or
maintenance of any real property in New Mexico” as a construction contract, and
it goes on to provide a list of specific examples of types of agreements that
constitute construction contracts under the statute. None of the specific examples
is or could be construed as a lease of construction equipment. We determined
that the resolution of this appeal turned on an important and unsettled question of
state law and submitted the following certified question to the New Mexico
Supreme Court:
Is a rental agreement for a scissor lift that was used to perform duct
work at an airport hanger at the time of an accident a “construction
contract” under N.M. Stat. § 56-7-1(E) (2005) such that a provision
in that agreement that “requires one party to the contract to
-5-
indemnify, hold harmless, insure or defend the other party to the
contract, including the other party’s employees or agents, against
liability, claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney
fees, arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property
caused by or resulting from, in whole or in part, the negligence, act
or omission of the indemnitee, its officers, employees or agents is
void, unenforceable and against the public policy of the state.” Id. at
§ 56-7-1(A).
United Rentals Northwest, Inc. v. Yearout Mechanical, Inc., 573 F.3d 997, 1000
(10th Cir. 2009).
The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that a rental agreement for
construction equipment falls within § 56-7-1 and an indemnification agreement in
such a rental agreement is unenforceable under New Mexico law. That court
construed § 56-7-1 as a broad limitation on the enforceability of an
indemnification agreement in any contract “relating to” construction. United
Rentals Northwest, Inc. v. Yearout Mechanical, Inc., No. 31,860, slip op. at 4
(N.M. June 17, 2010). However, the plain language of § 56-7-1 is susceptible to
more than one reasonable interpretation, and it was not clear if the statute was
intended to apply to rental agreements for construction equipment. The New
Mexico Supreme Court considered the legislative purpose behind the enactment
of New Mexico’s anti-indemnification statutes, and found that the legislature
“overrode competing public policies favoring the freedom to contract” and
recognized that holding wrongdoers liable for their own behavior served an
important deterrent function. Id. at 7. The court found no meaningful distinction
-6-
between a rental agreement for construction equipment and an ordinary
construction contract, and found that § 56-7-1 does apply to a lease of
construction equipment. The New Mexico Supreme Court considered United
Rentals’ argument concerning the subsequent enactment of § 56-7-3 and judicial
decisions from other states with similar anti-indemnification statutes. Since § 56-
7-1 includes rental agreements for construction equipment, the court treated § 56-
7-3 as an extension of New Mexico’s anti-indemnification policy to all types of
rental agreements, not just leases of construction and mining equipment, and this
did not affect the clear legislative intent to include lease agreements for
construction equipment within the scope of § 56-7-1. Id. at 8-11. The New
Mexico Supreme Court also considered judicial decisions from other states and
acknowledged that some state courts have interpreted their own anti-
indemnification statutes more narrowly, but held that such a narrow interpretation
would be inconsistent with the intent of New Mexico Legislature when it enacted
§ 56-7-1. Id. at 11-12.
Based on the New Mexico Supreme Court’s answer to the certified
question, we find that the district court’s decision to grant Yearout’s motion to
dismiss should be affirmed. The Rental Out Contract is clearly a rental agreement
for construction equipment and falls within the scope of § 56-7-1, as this statute
was interpreted by New Mexico Supreme Court in answer to this Court’s certified
question. United Rentals raised each of its arguments concerning statutory
-7-
interpretation before the New Mexico Supreme Court, and those arguments were
rejected as grounds to exclude an indemnification agreement contained within a
lease of construction equipment from the scope of § 56-7-1. Thus, there are no
issues remaining for resolution in this appeal following the New Mexico Supreme
Court’s answer to this Court’s certified question, and the indemnification
agreement in the Rental Out Contract is unenforceable under New Mexico law.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
Claire V. Eagan
District Judge
-8-