This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

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

Daniel Lee Jacobson


By Dan Jacobson


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...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
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 up for Daily Journal emails