different terms

In 1960, defendant G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. entered into a contract with plaintiff Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to furnish the labor and equipment necessary to remove and replace the upper metal cover of plaintiff's steam turbine. Under the contract defendant agreed to perform the work at its own risk and expense and to indemnify plaintiff against all loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from injury to property arising out of or connected with performance of the contract. Defendant also agreed to procure at least $50,000 in insurance covering liability for injury to property, with plaintiff named as an additional insured under a policy containing a cross-liability clause. During performance of the work the cover fell and injured the exposed rotor of the turbine. Plaintiff spent $25,144.51 on repairs and brought suit to recover that amount under the indemnity clause. At trial plaintiff dismissed its negligence count and obtained judgment on the theory that the indemnity provision covered injury to plaintiff's own property. Defendant offered to prove through admissions of plaintiff's agents, defendant's conduct under similar contracts with plaintiff, and other evidence that the parties intended the indemnity clause to cover only injury to third-party property. The trial court refused to admit any extrinsic evidence, held that the plain language of the agreement required indemnification for injury to plaintiff's property, and entered judgment for plaintiff. To prove the amount of damages sustained, plaintiff presented invoices received from Ingersoll-Rand, the manufacturer and repairer of the turbine, the drafts by which plaintiff had remitted payment, and testimony that payment had been made. Plaintiff called a mechanical engineer who qualified as an expert witness on the repair of turbines.