## Facts

- Butler Petroleum agreed to refurbish the Zinssers’ gasoline station in exchange for the Zinssers’ agreement to buy petroleum products from Butler for a set term.
- The agreement included a broad indemnity clause requiring the Zinssers to indemnify Butler for liability arising from leakage, fire, explosion, or other casualty connected to the equipment or premises.
- Butler arranged for AMG Sign Company to remove an old station sign and install a new one; Gary Ruzzi, an AMG employee, performed the work using a cutting torch.
- Butler also arranged with Shockey to supply and transport used fiberglass gasoline tanks; at the time of the sign work, tanks were on the ground near the work area.
- One tank had a hole and contained gasoline; fumes ignited from the torch, causing an explosion and fire that injured Ruzzi.
- After the accident, Ruzzi returned to work in a less physically demanding job at approximately the same salary.
- At trial, Ruzzi presented expert testimony on loss of earning capacity notwithstanding similar post-injury earnings.

## Issues

1. Whether the station agreement’s indemnity clause clearly and unequivocally required the Zinssers to indemnify Butler for liability caused by Butler’s own negligence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony on loss of earning capacity where the plaintiff’s post-injury wages were roughly equal to pre-injury wages.

## Decision

- The court held the indemnity clause did not require the Zinssers to indemnify Butler for Butler’s own negligence because the clause lacked clear and unequivocal language addressing indemnitee negligence.
- The court held the trial court did not err in admitting the expert testimony on loss of earning capacity; the testimony had a sufficient factual basis and assisted the jury.
- The court affirmed the judgment as to indemnity and the evidentiary ruling, leaving intact the remand for proceedings on delay damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, an agreement will be construed to indemnify a party for its own negligence only if that intent is stated in clear and unequivocal language.
- General, sweeping phrases (such as “any and all liability” tied to specified hazards or activities) are insufficient, without explicit reference to the indemnitee’s negligence or comparable unmistakable terms.
- Loss of earning capacity is distinct from actual wages; a plaintiff may prove diminished earning capacity despite earning the same amount after the injury.
- Admission of expert testimony on earning capacity is committed to the trial court’s discretion; disputes about the strength of the expert’s assumptions generally go to weight rather than admissibility when grounded in record facts.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend a broadly worded indemnity clause to cover the indemnitee’s own negligence absent explicit language, and it upheld the admission of expert testimony that framed earning-capacity loss as a market-competitiveness limitation rather than a current-wage reduction.


Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co., 527 Pa. 1, 588 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1991)