This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania has rejected a county's contention that a health care provider was obligated to indemnify it for claims arising from an alleged suicide at a county jail.

The Case

Andrea Crawford filed a lawsuit as administratrix of the estate of her son, Monty Crawford, who died of an alleged suicide while in custody at the jail in Allegheny County. Crawford claimed that her son's death was a result of the defendants' failure to provide adequate medical care.

Pursuant to court-ordered mediation, Crawford settled her claims against Corizon Health Inc. and multiple individual Corizon defendants, leaving only her claims against the county, Orlando Harper (the jail's warden) and Monica Long (the jail's deputy warden) (collectively, the county defendants), and the county defendants' cross-claim for indemnity against Corizon, premised on a “hold harmless” clause found in the health services agreement (HSA) between the county and Corizon.

Crawford alleged that the county defendants maintained a custom and policy of not providing required medications to inmates and delegated functions relating to medical care to Corizon while knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact that Corizon was “ignoring the serious medical needs of inmates.”

Crawford alleged that the county defendants “failed to take or enact appropriate corrective measures to address those problems,” resulting in “a shockingly high number of deaths,” including that of her son.

Corizon and Crawford moved for summary judgment on the county's cross-claim for indemnification. They argued that the indemnity provision in the HSA excluded the county's negligent acts or omissions and did “not extend to claims brought directly against the county.” Crawford's claim against the county, they asserted, constituted a “separate and distinct” claim related to the county's management of the jail and, therefore, was not covered by the indemnity provision in the HSA.

The county defendants countered that the indemnification promised under the HSA was plenary, emphasizing Corizon's promise to provide indemnity for liability “of any kind whatsoever arising out of the operation and maintenance of … the health care services as provided under this agreement,” including “lawsuits arising solely or partially out of such delivery of healthcare.”

The county defendants asserted, quoting the indemnity provision, that Corizon agreed that “it had complete responsibility for such health care services.” The county defendants acknowledged that the indemnity provision excluded liability for the county's negligent acts or omissions, but claimed that the exclusion was not applicable to medical care because Corizon was the sole provider of medical care.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted the motion, finding that the HSA did not provide indemnification for the county defendants' alleged negligence and it dismissed the county defendants' cross-claim against Corizon.

In its decision, the district court explained that, under applicable Pennsylvania law, contracts for indemnity generally were “disfavored and narrowly construed,” and indemnification for an indemnitee's own negligent acts in particular was “so hazardous, and the character of the indemnity so unusual and extraordinary” that there could be “no presumption” that the indemnitor intended to assume the responsibility for the indemnitee's negligence unless the contract put it “beyond doubt by express stipulation.”

The district court then found that the indemnity clause in the HSA did not extend to the county defendants' own negligent acts or omissions, regardless of whether those acts or omissions were related to the provision of medical care.

The district court added that the HSA not only lacked an “express stipulation” that indemnity was intended to include the county defendants' own negligence, as required by Pennsylvania law, but “expressly and broadly” excluded it by stating that Corizon's obligation to indemnify the county “shall not apply to any claims, actions, lawsuits, damages, judgments and/or liabilities of any kind whatsoever to the extent that said claims, actions, lawsuits, damages, judgments and/or liabilities result from the negligent acts and/or omissions of the [c]ounty and/or any of its agents, elected officials, servants, assigns and/or employees.”

The district court was not persuaded by the county defendants' position that the exclusion applied only to nonmedical acts and omissions, such as an injury caused by the negligent transport of an inmate. The district court agreed that Corizon's promise to indemnify the county defendants from liabilities “arising out of the operation and maintenance of the aforesaid program of health care services” was broadly worded, but it pointed out that it was “immediately qualified and limited by an equally broadly worded exclusion of that indemnification” that stated that Corizon's obligation to indemnify the county “shall not apply to any claims … of any kind whatsoever to the extent that [they] result from the negligent acts and/or omissions of the [c]ounty.”

Finding that Crawford was asserting claims directly against the county defendants for their independent acts and omissions, including the alleged failure to ensure the delivery of medication to prisoners in their custody, the district court said that “the plain language of the exclusionary clause contained in the indemnity provision, and Pennsylvania law disfavoring indemnity for negligence,” mandated the conclusion that the HSA did not contract away the county defendants' constitutional obligations.

The case is Crawford v. Corizon Health.

Attorneys involved include: for Crawford, administratrix of the Estate of Monty Crawford, Wayne A. Ely and W. Charles Sipio of Kolman Ely in Penndel.

For Corizon Health Inc., Corizon Inc., Suzanne Mundy, Rob Bradkovich, Javona Butler, Leslie Anne Dubich, Susan Friend, Alisia Hollingsworth, Carla Ivan, Gina Jones, Blondell Johnson, Patrick Neary, Charlotte Porter, Amie Shank, Amy Smith, Felicia Spears, Tim Wick, Patricia Williams and Rabi Zaouif: Kathryn M. Kenyon of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott in Pittsburgh; for Allegheny County, Orlando Harper and Monica Long: John A. Bacharach of the Allegheny County Law Department; for Samir Milad Moussa: Cassidy L. Neal and Alan S. Baum of Matis Baum O'Connor in Pittsburgh; for Sarah Patterson, administratrix of the Estate of Michael Patterson, Norberto A. Rodriguez and Eugene L. Youngue: Michael C. Mongiello of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Camp Hill; for Alea Rollinitis and Simone Wilson: Michael C. Hamilton and Paula A. Koczan of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby in Pittsburgh.

Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Meyerowitz is the director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He can be contacted at [email protected].