Opinion
No. CV 06 5000605
February 13, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR REARGUMENT AND RECONSIDERATION
Upon the motion for reargument and reconsideration, the court has reconsidered and affirms its decision of December 23, 2008. Section 12 (Indemnification) of the contract between the parties provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Contractor shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law and at its own cost and expense, defend, indemnify and hold Owner, its partners, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, servants, representatives and agents harmless from, and against any and all claims, loss, (including attorneys' fees, witnesses' fee and all court costs), damages, expense and liability (including statutory liability), resulting from injury and/or death of any person or damage to or loss of any property arising out of negligent or wrongful act, error or omission or breach of contract, in connection with the operations of the contractor or its subcontractors." (Emphasis added.) This language is clear and unequivocal that an allegation of negligence against Exit 88 gives rise to the duty to defend. In reaching this decision, the court has not decided any issue of negligence but finds that the mere allegation of negligence in accordance within the plain meaning of Section 12 is sufficient to trigger the duty to defend. "There cannot be any broader classification than the word all. In its ordinary and natural meaning, the word all leaves no room for exceptions." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Burkle v. Car Truck Leasing Co., 1 Conn.App. 54, 56-57, 467 A.2d 1255 (1983). See also Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153, 159, 905 A.2d 1156 (2006) (suggesting that the shifting of risk for negligence acts is allowed if the party assuming risk is "better or equally able to bear it").