distinguishing eom-mercial lease for real property from indemnification contract and noting, “Perry and Butler apply the general principle that the exculpatory language must be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. In contracts of indemnity, this principle is applied with a force that requires the parties to state in express terms that the active negligence of the indemnitee will be assumed by the indemnitor.”
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing eom-mercial lease for real property from indemnification contract and noting, “Perry and Butler apply the general principle that the exculpatory language must be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. In contracts of indemnity, this principle is applied with a force that requires the parties to state in express terms that the active negligence of the indemnitee will be assumed by the indemnitor.”
- requiring the following three conditions to be met: (1) that the clause does not contravene public policy; (2) that the contract relates to the private affairs of the contracting parties; and (3) that each party is a free bargaining agent
- affirming the principle that exculpatory clauses are enforceable so long as they are clear and unambiguous, and do not violate public policy
- exculpatory clause absolving lessor of "any and all liability" covers negligence even though word "negligence" does not appear in clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion authored by Mr. Justice Papadakos but continue in my belief that Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum, Co., 527 Pa. 1 , 588 A.2d 1 (1991), was wrongly decided as expressed in my dissenting opinion published in that case.