Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Tilbury Constructors

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 865·208 Cal. App. 4th 286·2012 WL 3195505
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 8, 2012No. C067054California4,366 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duarte, J.

Appellant Maxim Crane Works, L.R (Maxim), was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced an unfavorable choice-of-law provision in a form contract written by Maxim.

Steven Gorski, not a party to this appeal, sued Maxim for personal injuries arising from a worksite incident. Maxim cross-complained against Tilbury Constructors (Tilbury), Gorski’s employer, seeking indemnity. After a court trial, the trial court found the indemnity agreement was inapplicable to Gorski’s claim under Pennsylvania law, the law that Maxim’s form contract with Tilbury specified should govern their agreement. The trial court later *290 awarded Tilbury its attorney fees in full, without apportioning them between defending against the indemnity contract and defending against Gorski’s underlying claim.

On appeal, Maxim contends the trial court should not have applied Pennsylvania law to this dispute, and also challenges the award of attorney fees. We shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

Generally speaking, a worker injured on the job is limited to the workers’ compensation remedy against the employer. (See Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Co. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 863 ].)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.