Concord and Cumberland Horizontal Property Regime, And Thomas R. Mather, And Betty Y. Segal, And Signature Charleston, LLC and Wade Robinson, And James C. Kirkpatrick, And Paul A. Brim, And Fred Rappaport and Joyce Rappaport, And Thomas R. Debnam, as Trustee of The Trust Agreement of Thomas R. Debnam, And Pamela L. Vaughan, And 304 Concord & Cumberland, LLC, And 402 Concord & Cumberland, LLC, And Avant & Associates, LLC and Oakland Holding, LLC, And Mattison J. MacGillivray and Teresa E. MacGillivray And Pamela Queen, And Stuart Reeves, Plaintiffs, v. Concord & Cumberland, LLC, Concord & Cumberland Manager, LLC, Estates, Inc., Estates Management Company, Superior Construction Corporation, Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., The Muhler Company, Inc., In The Wind, Inc., J. Davis Architects, PLLC, Wall Craft Construction, Inc., Weatherholtz Masonry, LLC, Philip Gasque d/b/a Philip Gasque Construction, Architectural Stone Company, Southern Mechanical, Inc., Greg Gasque Metal Works, Keating Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc., Lowcountry Tile Contractors, Inc., Safeco Insurance Company of America, Companion Property and Casualty of America, Companion Property and Casualty Group, Watts Builders, LLC, Elias Duffy d/b/a Masonry Pros, Renaissance Steel, LLC, American Drywall Construction, Inc., Turner Electrical of SC, Inc., and Metro Waterproofing, Inc., Defendants, Of which Superior Construction Corporation is the Appellant, And The Muhler Company, Inc. is the, Respondent., 424 S.C. 639
Summary
HOLDINGS: [1]-In an action involving the alleged negligent construction of a condominium project in Charleston, which resulted in numerous construction defects, the circuit court properly applied the clear and unequivocal standard because the standard applied when an indemnitee sought indemnification for its own concurrent negligence, whether sole or concurrent; [2]-Strictly construing the Subcontract, the circuit court properly found it failed to indemnify appellant for losses resulting from its own concurrent negligence because respondent's indemnity obligation extended to losses respondent only caused in part, but did not clearly and unequivocally require respondent to indemnify for the negligence of others that contributed to the same loss.