Contracts
Aug. 4, 2011
An indemnity clause by any other name
When it comes to indemnity agreements, we're stuck with terms that the courts have been telling us for decades to stop using. By Dan Jacobson of Pacific West College of Law
Dan Jacobson
Attorney
Phone: (714) 505-4872
Email: dlj@jacobsonlawyers.com
Dan Jacobson is a practicing attorney in Tustin; a law professor-emeritus; a retired Governor of the California Insurance Guarantee Association, having been appointed to that position by Congressman John Garamendi, when Congressman Garamendi was California's Insurance Commission; and, a recently retired member of California's Board of Accountancy, having been appointed to that position by Assembly-Speaker Anthony Rendon.
In 1972, a Court of Appeal classified indemnity agreements as Types I, II, and II. McDonald & Kruse v. San Jose Steel 29 Cal.App.3d 413, 418-421 (1972). Three years later in Rossmoor Sanitation District v. Pylon 13 Cal.3d 622 (1975) the state Supreme Court dealt with various types of indemnity agreements, but never discussed the MacDonald & Kruse classifications. Three years after that, the 2nd District Court of Appeal...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In