{
  "id": 8527748,
  "name": "CANDID CAMERA VIDEO WORLD, INC., IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANIES and BORG-WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBIN M. MATHEWS and S. L. NUSBAUM & COMPANY, INC., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MODENE C. GILBERT, Executrix of the Estate of CHARLES G. GILBERT, SR., and MODENE GILBERT, Individually and Severally, Trading as CANDID CAMERA, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Candid Camera Video World, Inc. v. Mathews",
  "decision_date": "1985-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8418SC1304",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "638",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 634"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 868",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4708418
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E. 2d 339",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549002
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221507
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "515 F. 2d 1316",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3691859,
        1137733
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us-app-dc/169/0345-01",
        "/f2d/515/1316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 U.S. 297",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6164545
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/359/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "479 F. 2d 674",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1310575
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/479/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "451 F. 2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        787688
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/451/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 S.E. 2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551108
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 S.E. 2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2673031
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560800,
        8560875,
        8560843,
        8560816,
        8560825
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0202-01",
        "/nc/300/0202-05",
        "/nc/300/0202-04",
        "/nc/300/0202-02",
        "/nc/300/0202-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 S.E. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547546
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/45/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575720
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 632",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520868
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 S.E. 2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 N.C. App. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520116
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/56/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E. 2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522802
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/73/0182-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 542,
    "char_count": 8447,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7914595093760097e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8360504801631292
    },
    "sha256": "28c3212d39553b5727ad29a4c750ef9cee022e289ac224814ab54a18b2710609",
    "simhash": "1:5ff47c5190ee4dc6",
    "word_count": 1371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:57.071049+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CANDID CAMERA VIDEO WORLD, INC., IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANIES and BORG-WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBIN M. MATHEWS and S. L. NUSBAUM & COMPANY, INC., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MODENE C. GILBERT, Executrix of the Estate of CHARLES G. GILBERT, SR., and MODENE GILBERT, Individually and Severally, Trading as CANDID CAMERA, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nSummary judgment should be granted when the movant establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ipock v. Gilmore, 73 N.C. App. 182, 326 S.E. 2d 271 (1985). Here the relevant lease provisions constitute all the material facts; therefore, the sole question is whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Old Dominion Distributors v. Bissette, 56 N.C. App. 200, 287 S.E. 2d 409 (1982).\nThe issue of law before this Court concerns application to defendants of the exculpatory and indemnification clauses found in the lease between Candid Camera and Equitable.\nThe relevant clauses read:\n17. Tenant\u2019s Indemnification and Liability Insurance.\n(a) Tenant agrees that it will hold Landlord harmless from any and all injury or damage to person or property in, on or about the Leased Premises. . . .\n(b) Landlord shall not be liable for any damage to persons or property sustained in or about the Leased Premises during the term hereof, howsoever caused.\nThough there has been some confusion to the contrary, the law with respect to exculpatory clauses is different from that with respect to indemnification clauses.\nThere is a distinction between contracts whereby one seeks to wholly exempt himself from liability for the consequences of his negligent acts, and contracts of indemnity against liability imposed for the consequences of his negligent acts. The contract in the instant case is of the latter class and is more favored in law.\nKirkpatrick & Assoc. v. Wickes Corp., 53 N.C. App. 306, 280 S.E. 2d 632 (1981), citing Gibbs v. Light Co., 265 N.C. 459, 144 S.E. 2d 393 (1965).\nThe \u201chold harmless\u201d language of clause 17(a) indicates that this is an indemnification clause. See Kirkpatrick & Assoc. v. Wickes Corp., supra. In interpreting a contract of indemnity, the court should give effect to the intention of the parties. Triplett v. James, 45 N.C. App. 96, 262 S.E. 2d 374, disc. rev. denied, 300 N.C. 202, 269 S.E. 2d 621 (1980). But where the contractual language is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret the contract as written. Renfro v. Meacham, 50 N.C. App. 491, 274 S.E. 2d 377 (1981). Indemnity against negligence must be made unequivocally clear in the contract, particularly in a situation where the parties have presumably dealt at arm\u2019s length. Cooper v. Owsley & Son, Inc., 43 N.C. App. 261, 258 S.E. 2d 842 (1979).\nDefendants contend that intent to include them is expressed by a clause in the lease granting all burdens and benefits of the parties to their \u201crespective personal representatives, heirs, successors and . . . assigns.\u201d The foregoing quoted language includes only those who may succeed to Equitable\u2019s ownership interest and does not include agents or those who purport to be agents of Equitable. There is nothing in the lease that demonstrates an \u201cunequivocal\u201d intent of Equitable and Candid Camera to include defendants under the indemnification clause. On the contrary, the preamble to and clause 25 of the lease clearly denote Equitable as \u201cLandlord\u201d:\nThis Deed OF Lease (herein called Lease), Made this 20th day of February, 1981 by and between THE EQUITABLE Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation having its principal place of business at 1285 Avenue of the America [sic], New York, N. Y., 10019 (\u201cLandlord\u201d). . . .\n25. . . . The term \u201cLandlord\u201d as used in this lease, so far as covenants or agreements on the part of the Landlord are concerned, shall be limited to mean and include only the owner or owners of the Landlord\u2019s interest in this lease. . . .\nThe lease as written clearly indicates that \u201cLandlord\u201d means Equitable alone, to the exclusion of all others.\nDefendants cite Restatement (Second) of Agency \u00a7\u00a7 343, 347 (1957) for the proposition that an agent may benefit from a contract lowering the standard of care of its employer. This was also called the \u201capparent New York rule\u201d by the Second Circuit in Leather\u2019s Best, Inc. v. S. S. Mormaclynx, 451 F. 2d 800 (2d Cir. 1971). The \u201cNew York rule\u201d has been derogated by that court as derived \u201calmost exclusively\u201d from the Restatement. Rupp v. International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., 479 F. 2d 674 (2d Cir. 1973). This rule is an anomaly among the states and defendant can cite no authority to support it in North Carolina. We will not apply it in this case.\nGeneral principles of the law of agency lend no aid to defendants\u2019 position. \u201c[A]n agent is liable for all damages caused by his negligence, unless exonerated therefrom, in whole or in part, by a statute or a valid contract binding on the person damaged.\u201d Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 79 S.Ct. 766, 3 L.Ed. 2d 820 (1959). Accord, Picker v. Searcher\u2019s Detective Agency, 515 F. 2d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1975); see also Trust Co. v. R.R., 209 N.C. 304, 183 S.E. 620 (1936).\nThe exculpatory clause must be even more strictly construed than the indemnification clause. Kirkpatrick & Assoc. v. Wickes Corp., supra. For the above reasons, defendants are not protected by either the exculpatory or indemnification clause. In the appropriate case, summary judgment may be rendered against the moving party. Greenway v. Insurance Co., 35 N.C. App. 308, 241 S.E. 2d 339 (1978). Because we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment on this issue is reversed as to defendants and the case is remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiff on this issue and for trial on the issue of defendants\u2019 negligence.\nDefendants also attempt to appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of negligence. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not ap-pealable and is not properly before this Court. Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 302 S.E. 2d 868 (1983).\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan & Elrod, by J. Reed Johnston, Jr. and Joseph F. Brotherton, for plaintiffs and third-party defendants-appe Hants.",
      "Smith Moore Smith Schell & Hunter, by Robert A. Wicker and Catherine C. Eagles, for defendants and third-party plaintiffs-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CANDID CAMERA VIDEO WORLD, INC., IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANIES and BORG-WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROBIN M. MATHEWS and S. L. NUSBAUM & COMPANY, INC., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MODENE C. GILBERT, Executrix of the Estate of CHARLES G. GILBERT, SR., and MODENE GILBERT, Individually and Severally, Trading as CANDID CAMERA, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants\nNo. 8418SC1304\n(Filed 17 September 1985)\nIndemnity \u00a7 2; Landlord and Tenant \u00a7 6; Principal and Agent \u00a7 11\u2014 indemnification and exculpatory clauses in lease \u2014 no exoneration of lessor\u2019s agents\nIndemnification and exculpatory clauses in a lease between plaintiff and a mall owner did not exonerate the corporate mall manager and its employee, as agents of the owner, from liability for damages caused by their negligence. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a trial on the issue of negligence by the mall manager and its employee in the loss by theft of items from plaintiffs store.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Washington, Judge. Judgment entered 25 October 1984 in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 1985.\nPlaintiff Candid Camera Video World, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation doing business in High Point Mall. After a theft of valuable items from its store, plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages from S. L. Nusbaum & Company, Inc., manager of the mall, and its employee, Robin M. Mathews, alleging that the loss was due to the negligence of these defendants. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States is the owner of the mall and is not a party to this action.\nDefendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs lease with Equitable entitled the defendants to be exculpated and indemnified from any damages due to negligence of the defendants, and that defendants were not in fact negligent.\nJudge Washington\u2019s judgment, entered 25 October 1984, denied summary judgment on the issue of negligence, but granted summary judgment to defendants on the lease provisions, thereby dismissing plaintiffs action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.\nTuggle, Duggins, Meschan & Elrod, by J. Reed Johnston, Jr. and Joseph F. Brotherton, for plaintiffs and third-party defendants-appe Hants.\nSmith Moore Smith Schell & Hunter, by Robert A. Wicker and Catherine C. Eagles, for defendants and third-party plaintiffs-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 672
}