# Roundtree v. New Orleans Aviation Board

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · April 9, 2003 · 2002 La.App. 4 Cir. 1757

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7759023

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles ROUNDTREE and Betty Smith Roundtree v. THE NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD, New Orleans International Airport and/or, The City of New Orleans, Powell Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 9, 2003
- **Citations:** 2002 La.App. 4 Cir. 1757; 844 So. 2d 1091; 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1101; 2003 WL 1903592
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Love
- **Judges:** Gorbaty, III, Love
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7759023

## Opinion text

1LOVE, J.,
Concurs With Reasons.
The Supreme Court in Berry v. Orleans Parish School Board, 2001-3283, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), 830 So.2d 283, 285 , discussed the standard for indemnifying an indemni-tee for his own negligence:
In Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., 563 So.2d 258 (La.1990), this court held that an indemnity contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms:
A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.
(Internal citations omitted)(Emphasis Added).
The plain language of the subcontract between Glynagin and Hamp’s clearly expresses the intention to indemnify Hamp’s for Glynagin’s negligence, not for any acts of negligence committed by Hamp’s. Further, there is no language in either the contract between Glynagin and Hamp’s or the contract between Hamp’s and the New Orleans defendants that Glynagin will indemnify the New Orleans defendants under any circumstances. The majority is correct in reversing the judgment of the trial court ordering Glynagin to defend Hamp’s and the New Orleans defendants.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7759023. Public record. Not legal advice.