A three-week trial over a subdivision roadway and related infrastructure yielded a disputed indemnification clause whose scope the appeals panel considered.

Benjamin Tymon, counsel for the Mirapolskys, asked the court to interpret an indemnity paragraph that he said unambiguously covers entries upon the access easement and activities performed there, including recovery of attorney fees and costs for breach-of-easement litigation. Tymon said the clause’s purpose — to require prompt restoration and good-workmanlike construction — means the Campbells should reimburse successful easement-related litigation costs.

Justices pressed whether the phrase "resulting from the exercise of the easements" grammatically modifies both ‘‘damage to personal property, injury or death’’ and the later phrase “entry upon and activities performed within the access easement area,” and whether indemnification traditionally covers direct-party attorney fees. The panel also queried which categories of fees would be recoverable: fees spent defending against the Campbells’ trespass counterclaims, unsuccessful nuisance claims, or administrative work before the planning board.

Tymon conceded some categories (defense against trespass claims) might not be covered but argued fees tied to successful breach-of-easement claims and some administrative work that mirrored the easement obligations could be recoverable. The court signaled it would consider the contractual language in context and remand procedures for fee determination if necessary.