54 results for 'cat:"Indemnification" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. McKeague finds the lower court properly awarded Kroger more than $612,000 to cover legal fees related to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of individuals killed in a collision with one of its shipping contractors. The shipping company's indemnification agreement with Kroger required payments for incidents involving negligence on the part of the shipping company. An exception in the agreement removes liability from the shipping company only in accidents where Kroger is "solely liable," and because the shipping company's driver is at least partially at fault for the accident, the company was required to cover Kroger's legal expenses. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: McKeague, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 23-3462, Categories: Transportation, indemnification, contract
J. Crichton finds that the court of appeal should not have determined that a contractor truck driver’s cross claim for indemnity and defense made before a judicial finding of liability is premature in this car accident action. Under statute, the right to collect on an indemnity agreement is determined on a finding of liability. However, there is no prohibition on making a claim for indemnity in the same proceeding. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court, Judge: Crichton, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: 2023-CC-01358, Categories: indemnification, contract
J. Lee finds that the lower court properly found for the insurers in a declaratory judgment action over the insurer's obligation to defend a construction company in an underlying suit filed by the city after it found cracks in the welds of steel columns at O'Hare International Airport. The defects in the welds do not constitute "property damage" under the welder's commercial liability policies because there was no physical injury to any building elements beyond the steel columns with the faulty welds. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Lee, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 23-1662, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Sykes finds that the lower court properly found for the insurer, ruling that its policy with a dialysis provider contains a bacteria exclusion that precludes coverage of a $2 million judgment against the provider stemming from a patient's sepsis diagnosis after suffering repeated infections resulting from his dialysis treatment. The bacteria exclusion plainly applies, and the insurer was not required to conduct any further investigation into the man's claims before denying coverage. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Sykes, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 22-1983, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Carlyle finds that the lower court improperly denied the appellant's motion to compel arbitration of the appellee company's statutory claims for defense and indemnity. The court notes that the arbitration clause at issue "is broad in scope" and concludes that any questions related to the contract "must be determined by the arbitrator." Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Carlyle, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00591-CV, Categories: Arbitration, indemnification, contract
J. Brimmer declines to find that an oil company's indemnification agreement with a gas drilling company was void in claims brought against the gas company after a subcontractor was "severely burned and shocked" upon connecting wires at a work site, as the master service contract does not constitute a construction agreement. The oil company's request for a declaratory judgment was not premature since the court would not make findings concerning the subcontractor's state negligence claims.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Brimmer, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv139, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Negligence, indemnification, contract
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly denied the insurers' motion for summary judgment in a dispute over their refusal to provide coverage in two underlying personal injury actions. The insurers failed to show that a policy exclusion applies, due to inconsistent language in the contract, and it is not clear that the accidents at issue arose from the contractors' electrical work on the site or from general safety conditions. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 00734, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Cogan rules an insurer for a subcontractor hired to install glass partitions at the American Airlines Admirals Club at JFK Airport must cover the general contractor’s defense costs for an underlying trip-and-fall action. The court finds that, while the subcontractor was able to shift liability for the underlying claims to a sub-subcontractor, that didn’t absolve its insurer of its obligations to indemnify the general contractor as an additional insured when the action was first initiated.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Cogan, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv4216, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Cartwright partially grants the Connecticut insurance company summary judgment against the New York insurance company's complaint that it has no duty to defend a third party in an underlying lawsuit, even as the Connecticut insurance company argues that the New York insurance company does not have a claim to any defense cost reimbursement. Previous Washington courts found that insurers can share defense costs equally, and the New York insurance company does not have a right to claim reimbursements for its defense costs because it was obligated to do so concurrently with the Connecticut insurance company.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Cartwright, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1114, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. DeGiusti denies the plaintiff insurance company's motion for summary judgment and partially grants summary judgment to the defendant company in this declaratory judgment action concerning coverage for a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff company fails to show that the defendant "has a duty to defend or indemnify" one of the commercial transportation companies in the underlying litigation based on the vehicle being a "covered auto."
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: DeGiusti, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv626, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Clay finds the lower court properly granted the brake manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims. Not only did Nissan fail to produce any evidence at the product liability trial that the brake system was defective and played a role in numerous car accidents, but the jury in the product liability action also failed to attribute any blame to the brake parts, which prevents Nissan from recouping any of the damages awarded by the jury. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Clay, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 22-5469, Categories: Product Liability, indemnification, contract
J. Bryan grants the insurance company summary judgment on its complaint that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in underlying lawsuits claiming that one of the insureds raped minors. Several policy exclusions apply, including intentional bodily injury, which includes the alleged intentional sexual abuse of minor children.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Bryan, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv5461, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Boardman denies a subcontractor’s motion to dismiss a surety’s third-party complaint in this Miller Act claim for contractual indemnification as unripe. Under the indemnification agreement liability cannot be transferred to subcontractor to enforce the Miller Act and the prevention doctrine is considered a non sequitur. The court cannot determine at this stage if the claims in fact are covered by the indemnification agreements.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, indemnification, contract
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in determining an insurance company has a duty to indemnify a construction contractor following a dispute between the contractor and its client over allegedly shoddy workmanship, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the client. The insurance company argued, among other things, that the contractor had assumed liability beyond what was covered in its insurance policy, but the record does not support this argument.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00047-CV, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court improperly denied the floor cleaning contractor's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint against it stemming from a woman's slip and fall in a supermarket. The contractor's contract contains no express indemnification provision, or a requirement to procure insurance. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 05413, Categories: indemnification, contract
J. Bryson declines to dismiss contract claims concerning an asset sale but vacates a prior ruling on the counterclaim by finding that indemnification for litigation fees and expenses is not time-barred under the purchase agreement. This aligns with the seller's argument that settlement proceeds constitute "insurance proceeds" under the agreement, a critical question that must be decided at trial.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Bryson, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv679, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: indemnification, Attorney Fees, contract
J. Self denies the company's and insurance company's motions for summary judgment in a breach of contract action brought by the insurer arising from a coverage dispute. The insurer seeks indemnification from the insurance company for a $5 million settlement reached in an underlying wrongful death action. The insurance company is not a party to the master agreement and therefore lacks standing to challenge its validity. The terms of the agreement require the company to indemnify the mill operator and a jury must decide the degree of fault between the company and the mill operator with regard to the company's employee's death from asphyxiation. The insurer's motion for summary judgment is partially granted as to the claims against the insurance company.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Self, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv279, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, indemnification, contract
J. Pryor finds that the district court improperly ruled in favor of the food company on one of the railroad company's breach of contract claims and correctly dismissed another of the breach of contract claims. The district court incorrectly found that the parties' agreement with respect to a sidetrack connecting a rail line with a cereal plant required the food company to indemnify the railroad company if the railroad company was solely negligent. The railroad company sought indemnifcation for a $16 million settlement awarded to the food company's employee in an underlying negligence action arising from injuries he suffered while working on the sidetrack. The food company does not have to indemnify unless it was at least partially liable for the employee's accident. The doctrine of vouchment does not block the railroad company from introducing evidence of the food company's fault. Reversed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 22-10922, Categories: indemnification, contract