The opinion of the court was delivered by: Martin C. Ashman, United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff North American Specialty Insurance Company ("NAS") is surety on performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of defendant Alexandria Trucking Underground Construction, Inc. as principal in favor of the Village of Wheeling, Illinois, as obligee. NAS filed suit alleging that Defendants Alexandria Trucking, Gloria Alexandria, and Arthur Alexandria each entered into an indemnity agreement, under which the Defendants agreed to indemnify NAS from any losses and expenses incurred by NAS in resolving claims on the bonds issued on behalf of Alexandria Trucking. NAS moves for summary judgment urging that there are no disputed facts, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the indemnity agreement clearly and unambiguously states its terms.*fn1 This Court concludes that NAS is entitled to summary judgment on its claims.
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was unopposed, leaving no dispute as to the material facts.*fn2 Defendants entered into an indemnification agreement, under which they agreed to indemnify NAS for all losses and expenses incurred in resolving claims on performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of Alexandria Trucking. NAS incurred losses in discharging claims made under these bonds. The losses include $108,785.96 paid to payment bond claimants and $19,165.69 paid for attorneys' fees and collateral expenses. Defendants did not indemnify NAS for these losses as they were required to do under the indemnity agreement.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In determining whether factual issues exist, the court must view all the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Walker v. Northeast Reg. Commuter R.R. Corp., 225 F.3d 895, 897 (7th Cir. 2000).
In the instant case, this Court finds that the indemnity agreement is enforceable. See Central Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Whitehall Const., Inc., No. 86 C 7167, 1988 WL 23789, at *10 (N.D.Ill. March 4, 1988) (finding indemnity agreement enforceable where its terms provided the surety the right to recover losses incurred); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Smith, 561 N.E.2d 14 (Ill. 1990). The indemnity agreement between NAS and Defendants states in part: "The [Defendants] shall exonerate, indemnify and keep indemnified [NAS] from and against any and all liability from losses and/or expenses of whatsoever kind or nature (including, but not limited to, interest, court costs and counsel fees). . . ." (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Ex. 2 at 1.) Defendants breached the terms of the indemnity agreement by their failure to indemnify NAS.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for all losses and expenses incurred in resolving the claims on bonds issued on behalf of Alexandria Trucking. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of NAS and against ...