Ryan W. Young | Lewis Brisbois | July 12, 2017 California’s longstanding restrictions on defense and indemnity construction contracts have undergone several changes over the years with significant differences based upon the contract execution date. More specifically, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code § 2782 in 1967, and has amended its provisions several times since… Continue reading What Does Your Defense And Indemnity Construction Contract Mean In 2017?
Tag: Indemnity
Indemnity, Duty to Defend, and Timing
Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | January 20, 2016 The concept of indemnity gets a lot of press. With good reason, since an indemnity is one tool in the risk management shed. As a recent court decision shows, however, a duty to defend is different than an indemnity. And a party who seeks… Continue reading Indemnity, Duty to Defend, and Timing
#2 – Subcontractor must Pay for General Contractor Defense, Including its Litigation Mistakes, after Ignoring General Contractor’s Tender Under Express Indemnity Provision
Graham C. Mills | Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP A recent decision by the Court of Appeal, Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To… Continue reading #2 – Subcontractor must Pay for General Contractor Defense, Including its Litigation Mistakes, after Ignoring General Contractor’s Tender Under Express Indemnity Provision
California Court Confirms that any “Potentially Covered” Loss Triggers the Duty to Defend
Gabe Weaver | Ball Janik | August 10, 2015 When threatened with a lawsuit, an insured’s first call is often to his or her insurer, asking the insurer to hire lawyers to defend the lawsuit. All too often the insurer’s initial response is that the claim is not covered for one reason or another. At… Continue reading California Court Confirms that any “Potentially Covered” Loss Triggers the Duty to Defend