indemnity clause in Alaska

1999See, e.g., Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976) ("The better rule in modern cases is that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as 'reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity for the indemnitee's own negligence.”) (citations omitted). .

1999We review de novo "a trial court's interpretation of a contract in which the underlying facts are undisputed." Oaksmith v. Brusich, 774 P.2d 191, 195 (Alaska 1989). [5] Wright v. Vickaryous, 598 P.2d 490, 497 (Alaska 1979). [6] 852 P.2d 1146 (Alaska 1993). [7] See id. at 1151-52 . [8] Id. at 1148 . [9] Id. at 1152 . [10] Id. [11] See, e.g., Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976) ("The better rule in modern cases is that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as `reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity fo

1991A parent or legal guardian will execute the document on behalf of a minor. [4] In a line of cases interpreting indemnity agreements in construction contracts allocating the risk of injuring third parties, we have held "that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as `reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity for the indemnitee's own negligence." Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976); see also Burgess Construction Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980); C.J.M.

1986Most modern authorities hold that an indemnity clause such as the present one is effective to shift responsibility for an accident where the indemnitee is negligent and the indemnitor is not. 614 P.2d at 1382 (footnotes and citations omitted).

2002Light & Power Co., 622 P.2d 954, 956 (Alaska 1981) (holding that where the scope of the indemnity requirement is modified by the phrase "resulting from negligence on the part of the [indemnitor]," the phrase cannot reasonably be construed as intending that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for the indemnitee's own negligence). 19 . 823 P.2d 632, 636 (Alaska 1991). 20 .

1988In its order regarding the summary judgment motions, the superior court held that, under the reasoning of City and Borough of Juneau v. Alaska Electric Light & Power Co., 622 P.2d 954 (Alaska 1981), “the most reasonable interpretation of the indemnity clause involved in the present case is that it covers all losses except that portion of loss which is directly attributable to the negligence of the State.” (Emphasis in original.) The indemnity clause of the timber sale contract between Schnabel and the state reads: The Purchaser shall indemnify the state and hold it harmless for any and all cla

2001Id. at 554 . 55 . 614 P.2d 1380, 1382-83 (Alaska 1980). 56 . 777 P.24 649, 652-53 (Alaska 1989). 57 . 708 P.2d 60, 64 (Alaska 1985). 58 .

1991Constr., Inc. v. Chandler Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 708 P.2d 60 (Alaska 1985).

2002Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. Kandik Constr., Inc. & Assocs., 795 P.2d 793, 804 (Alaska 1990) (citing Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 164 Cal.App.3d 1227 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 172, 178 (1985)). 21 .

1991See Kandik, 795 P.2d at 803 . [7] The Borough's own citations to the record further undercut its argument that Roen consented to trial of breach of contract issues independent of the indemnity claim.

1989In Earthmovers, Inc. v. State, 644 P.2d 238, 240 (Alaska 1982), we examined a contract containing two indemnity provisions.

1986Id. at 64 ; see also Earthmovers of Fairbanks v. State, 644 P.2d 238, 239 (Alaska 1982).

1989Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., [ 351 F.2d 253, 258 (9th Cir.1965) ]; Air Transport Associates v. United States, 221 F.2d 467 (9th Cir.1955); Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 95 Colo. 99 , 33 P.2d 974 (1934). 552 P.2d at 659-60 .

1989Contrary to the State’s characterization of Northwest Airlines, the case involved an indemnity agreement rather than an exculpatory clause. 351 F.2d at 255 .

1986In Stephan & Sons v. Municipality of Anchorage, 629 P.2d 71, 78 (Alaska 1981) the court discussed AS 45.45.900 while interpreting another indemnity clause very similar to the one in this case, but did not apply the statute because the contract in *798 question had been entered into before the statute’s effective date.

1984See Burgess Construction Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980) (contractor’s employees killed on public highway; indemnification clause held valid, since the state's incentive to maintain public roads would not be diminished by an indemnity clause with one contractor); Stephan & Sons v. Municipality of Anchorage, 629 P.2d 71 (Alaska 1981).

2023The parties agreed they would still be able to pursue 156 (...continued) equitable contribution allocations); Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp. (Beazer II), 412 F.3d 429 , 447 n.20 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that indemnification provisions that do not apply directly are still factor to consider in contribution claim). 157 377 P.3d 959, 973-74 (Alaska 2016). 158 See McLaughlin v. Lougee, 137 P.3d 267, 275-79 (Alaska 2006) (recognizing common law contribution need for fairness purposes); Oakly Enters., LLC, 354 P.3d at 1080 (explaining contribution claims aim to equitably allocate damages among resp

2023The parties agreed they would still be able to pursue 156 (...continued) equitable contribution allocations); Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp. (Beazer II), 412 F.3d 429 , 447 n.20 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that indemnification provisions that do not apply directly are still factor to consider in contribution claim). 157 377 P.3d 959, 973-74 (Alaska 2016). 158 See McLaughlin v. Lougee, 137 P.3d 267, 275-79 (Alaska 2006) (recognizing common law contribution need for fairness purposes); Oakly Enters., LLC, 354 P.3d at 1080 (explaining contribution claims aim to equitably allocate damages among resp

2023The parties agreed they would still be able to pursue 156 (...continued) equitable contribution allocations); Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp. (Beazer II), 412 F.3d 429 , 447 n.20 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that indemnification provisions that do not apply directly are still factor to consider in contribution claim). 157 377 P.3d 959, 973-74 (Alaska 2016). 158 See McLaughlin v. Lougee, 137 P.3d 267, 275-79 (Alaska 2006) (recognizing common law contribution need for fairness purposes); Oakly Enters., LLC, 354 P.3d at 1080 (explaining contribution claims aim to equitably allocate damages among resp

2023The parties agreed they would still be able to pursue 156 (...continued) equitable contribution allocations); Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp. (Beazer II), 412 F.3d 429 , 447 n.20 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that indemnification provisions that do not apply directly are still factor to consider in contribution claim). 157 377 P.3d 959, 973-74 (Alaska 2016). 158 See McLaughlin v. Lougee, 137 P.3d 267, 275-79 (Alaska 2006) (recognizing common law contribution need for fairness purposes); Oakly Enters., LLC, 354 P.3d at 1080 (explaining contribution claims aim to equitably allocate damages among resp

2002Light & Power Co., 622 P.2d 954, 956 (Alaska 1981) (holding that where the scope of the indemnity requirement is modified by the phrase "resulting from negligence on the part of the [indemnitor]," the phrase cannot reasonably be construed as intending that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for the indemnitee's own negligence). 19 . 823 P.2d 632, 636 (Alaska 1991). 20 .

2002Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. Kandik Constr., Inc. & Assocs., 795 P.2d 793, 804 (Alaska 1990) (citing Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 164 Cal.App.3d 1227 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 172, 178 (1985)). 21 .

2002Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. Kandik Constr., Inc. & Assocs., 795 P.2d 793, 804 (Alaska 1990) (citing Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 164 Cal.App.3d 1227 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 172, 178 (1985)). 21 .

2001See Rogers & Babler v. State, 713 P.2d 795, 798 (Alaska 1986) ("We think AS 45.45.900 should come into effect only when it is determined, as between [the parties], that the [indemnitee] is solely negligent.").

1999See, e.g., State v. Korean Air Lines Co., 776 P.2d 315, 319 (Alaska 1989) (concluding "that to require indemnification for the State’s own negligence on the [airport] runways and taxiways would run afoul of the State's other obligations to the public”). .

1999We review de novo "a trial court's interpretation of a contract in which the underlying facts are undisputed." Oaksmith v. Brusich, 774 P.2d 191, 195 (Alaska 1989). [5] Wright v. Vickaryous, 598 P.2d 490, 497 (Alaska 1979). [6] 852 P.2d 1146 (Alaska 1993). [7] See id. at 1151-52 . [8] Id. at 1148 . [9] Id. at 1152 . [10] Id. [11] See, e.g., Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976) ("The better rule in modern cases is that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as `reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity fo

1999We review de novo "a trial court's interpretation of a contract in which the underlying facts are undisputed." Oaksmith v. Brusich, 774 P.2d 191, 195 (Alaska 1989). [5] Wright v. Vickaryous, 598 P.2d 490, 497 (Alaska 1979). [6] 852 P.2d 1146 (Alaska 1993). [7] See id. at 1151-52 . [8] Id. at 1148 . [9] Id. at 1152 . [10] Id. [11] See, e.g., Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976) ("The better rule in modern cases is that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as `reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity fo

1999We review de novo "a trial court's interpretation of a contract in which the underlying facts are undisputed." Oaksmith v. Brusich, 774 P.2d 191, 195 (Alaska 1989). [5] Wright v. Vickaryous, 598 P.2d 490, 497 (Alaska 1979). [6] 852 P.2d 1146 (Alaska 1993). [7] See id. at 1151-52 . [8] Id. at 1148 . [9] Id. at 1152 . [10] Id. [11] See, e.g., Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 659 (Alaska 1976) ("The better rule in modern cases is that the unambiguous language of an indemnity clause as `reasonably construed' should be given effect, even if it does not contain words specifying indemnity fo