Stripping a Floor

To review, Matthew Burns, a Florida auto mechanic, was using a BlastPro BP 10-27 ShotBlaster to strip the floor of the repair bay in his shop. The ShotBlaster is a small vehicle with a 25-horsepower, propane-fueled engine. Burns rented it from Sunbelt Rentals.

Burns’ employee, Robert Lemoine, was working with him. During the work, Lemoine became nauseous and had a bad headache. He went home, but Burns continued working alone. Burns was found dead the next morning. The cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning.

Verdict & New Lawsuit

Burns’ widow filed a product liability suit against Sunbelt Rentals, Blast Pro Manufacturing (the manufacturer of the vehicle) and the landlord for Burns’ shop. The landlord and Blast Pro settled this suit, but the case against Sunbelt Rentals went to trial. In July 2023, a jury returned an $8.9 million verdict against Sunbelt. This verdict was affirmed in 2025 by the Florida Court of Appeals.

Sunbelt and its insurance carrier did not, however, believe they should be left holding the bag for this verdict. They filed a new lawsuit, this time in Raleigh, North Carolina, against Niagara Machine and its insurance carrier (Travelers). Niagara, apparently a distributor for Blast Pro Manufacturing, had sold the ShotBlaster to Sunbelt in 2018. The centerpiece of the lawsuit was the contract of sale for the equipment in question.

Indemnity Clause

The 2018 sale was documented by an unsigned purchase order issued by Sunbelt. The order stated it was subject to the “terms and conditions” found on Sunbelt’s website. Those terms and conditions included an indemnification clause providing that Niagara would “indemnify and defend” Sunbelt from all claims and lawsuits arising out of “any product liability claim of failure to warn with respect to” the ShotBlaster. When Sunbelt was sued by the Burns estate (and by Lemoire) for product liability and failure to warn based on the carbon monoxide incident, it notified Niagara and requested indemnification and defense.

Neither Niagara nor Travelers responded to this request, and so Sunbelt proceeded to defend both lawsuits.

Settlement Offers & Trial

In April 2023, the Burns estate made a settlement offer to Sunbelt, and Sunbelt’s insurance carrier (ACE) authorized a counteroffer. But before the counteroffer was conveyed to the Burns estate, counsel for Sunbelt notified Niagara and Travelers “to give Niagara a chance to object or to take over the settlement negotiations altogether.”

A day later, the Travelers claims representative notified Sunbelt and its counsel that Travelers and Niagara would “accept defense and indemnity for the Burns and Lemoine cases.”

Travelers and Niagara then assumed control of the defense of Sunbelt in both cases, but they declined to convey the counteroffer to the Burns estate. As the Burns case continued, the estate made additional settlement offers, but Travelers (now in control of Sunbelt’s defense) refused to respond to any of them. It made no apparent effort to settle the case, and so it went to trial.

Then, near the close of the trial and after the case had been submitted to the jury, representatives of Travelers disclaimed any obligation to indemnify Sunbelt for the negligence claims made by the Burns estate.

Verdict & Settlements

The jury then found Sunbelt liable for negligence and awarded $8.9 million to the Burns estate. After this verdict was affirmed on appeal, Sunbelt and ACE made a settlement with the Burns estate. The specific amount of the settlement is unknown, but ACE and Sunbelt paid “millions of dollars,” according to the court opinion. Travelers and Niagara refused to contribute to the settlement.

Then, Travelers and Niagara made a separate settlement of Lemoine’s claims against Niagara, leaving Sunbelt out of the deal and exhausting the limits of the Travelers coverage in the process. The breach of contract suit by Sunbelt against Niagara was then filed.

Sunbelt claimed that Niagara breached the contract by refusing to pay the full cost of Sunbelt’s defense and indemnity in the Burns and Lemoine lawsuits. Niagara responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming that the purchase order that referred to the indemnity clause was not signed and that Niagara never agreed to it.

‘Plain Language’

The court disagreed with Niagara and denied the motion to dismiss. It stated that “the plain language of the purchase order clearly and unambiguously predicates the entire purchase order on the ‘terms and conditions,’ including the indemnification clause, found at the listed website.”

It added that the fact that the purchase order was unsigned makes no difference. A jury could reasonably find that the purchase order, including the indemnification clause, was part of the agreement between the parties, even though it was not signed.

Sunbelt argued that the contract also included an “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” and that in addition to violating the indemnification clause, Niagara also breached this implied covenant. It pointed to the following alleged actions by Niagara:

“… unreasonably and indifferently refusing to defend and indemnify Sunbelt, failing and refusing to engage in good-faith efforts to settle the Burns and Lemoine cases, failing to properly investigate and evaluate the claims against Sunbelt in those cases, failing to inform Sunbelt about settlement demands and otherwise to keep it apprised of developments, instructing the Travelers entities not to contribute certain amounts to settlement of the Burns case, negotiating a settlement of the Lemoine case without involving Sunbelt, and misrepresenting to Sunbelt that amounts were being withheld for Sunbelt’s defense before using those funds to settle claims against Niagara only.”

‘Good Faith & Fair Dealing’

In its motion to dismiss, Niagara argued that neither the purchase order nor the terms and conditions on the Sunbelt website mentioned any promise of “good faith and fair dealing,” and that at the least, that part of the Sunbelt claim should be dismissed. The court disagreed, stating:

“In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which injures the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.”

Sunbelt, it ruled, had a right to include this claim in its lawsuit, and to attempt to prove it. The court did rule in favor of Niagara on one point. Sunbelt had sought punitive damages. The court, however, dismissed that claim:

“Ultimately, the court agrees with Niagara and concludes that plaintiffs have failed to allege any ‘tortious act’ by Niagara that might support a request for punitive damages.”

The lawsuit between Sunbelt and Niagara remains in its early stages, and it could easily be a year or more before there is a final outcome.