Appeal, No. 149, March T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1954, No. 2830, in case of Pittsburgh Steel Company v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc. et al. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused June 20, 1961.
Gilbert J. Helwig, with him Francis St. Clair O'Leary, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.
H. A. Robinson, with him Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, for original defendant, appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL.
This appeal was taken from the judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the defendant and additional defendant in an action of assumpsit. Plaintiff, Pittsburgh Steel Company, the present appellant, owned the property on which the construction was taking place. Plaintiff seeks indemnity for a sum it had been required to pay in settling an earlier action
brought by an employee of the additional defendant (Eichleay Corporation) against plaintiff-appellant.
Originally the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant-Patterson for the installation by defendant of a blooming mill on plaintiff's premises. The contract contained the following clause: "INSURANCE CLAUSE: Contractor [Patterson] will indemnify, save harmless and defend buyer [the present plaintiff-appellant] from all liability for loss, damage or injury to person or property in any manner arising out of or incident to performance of this order and will furnish buyer with proper evidence that contractor is insured against such liability.
"Contractor will indemnify, save harmless and defend buyer from any and all claims, demands or suits made or brought against buyer on account of any of the terms or provisions of any applicable workmen's compensation law and will furnish buyer with the proper evidence that contractor is insured against all liability made under such law."
Defendant-Patterson was to perform the electrical work. In order to complete the general construction and mechanical installation of the mill, Patterson entered into a contract with the additional defendant - Eichleay Corporation. The contract between Patterson and Eichleay contained the identical clause with respect to insurance which was in Patterson's above-mentioned contract with plaintiff.
Before any work was commenced on the mill, all the parties met and agreed upon certain safety precautions. Among the precautions to be taken were the installation by Patterson of red lights to warn when workers were in a position of danger, and the installation by Eichleay of blocks on the crane rails. In spite of these oral ...