indemnification clause in Missouri

15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight Systems, Inc.green scotus · 1975 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–2006 2 sentences 2006In that case, the Court held that “the presence in an equipment lease of an indemnification clause directed to the lessor’s negligence is not in conflict with the safety concerns of the Commission or with the regulations it has promulgated.” Id. at 41 , 96 S.Ct. 229 . 2006In that case, the Court held that “the presence in an equipment lease of an indemnification clause directed to the lessor’s negligence is not in conflict with the safety concerns of the Commission or with the regulations it has promulgated.” Id. at 41 , 96 S.Ct. 229 .	1	2
O'CONNELL v. Walt Disney World Companygreen fladistctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So.2d 444, 446 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (explaining that an indemnification clause which attempts to shift the responsibility for the payment of damages back to the injured party produces the same result as an exculpatory provision).	1	1
Magnus v. LUTHERN GEN. HEALTH CARE SYS.green illappct · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996The indemnification clause provided that the Seller would indemnify the Buyer for “aU costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) of any kind whatsoever arising out of or incident to or in connection with ... any claim of any type whatsoever asserted against Buyer by any person ... of any type arising out of or in connection of with (a) any act, conduct, failure to act or omission of Seller.” 176 Ill.Dec. at 217, 601 N.E.2d at 915. 1996The indemnification clause provided that the Seller would indemnify the Buyer for “aU costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) of any kind whatsoever arising out of or incident to or in connection with ... any claim of any type whatsoever asserted against Buyer by any person ... of any type arising out of or in connection of with (a) any act, conduct, failure to act or omission of Seller.” 176 Ill.Dec. at 217, 601 N.E.2d at 915.	1	1
Owen v. Owengreen vactapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995Id. at 271.	1	1
Pilla v. Tom-Boy, Inc.green moctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See also, Pilla v. Tom-Boy, Inc., 756 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Mo.App.1988) (indicating that an indemnification clause will not be structured to indemnify the indemnitee for its own negligence absent clear and unequivocal expression of the intent to indemnify). 4 .	1	1
Dillard v. Shaughnessy, Fickel & Scott Architectsgreen moctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See Dillard, 864 S.W.2d at 372 (establishing that the contract conferred upon the General Contractor the responsibility for job site safety, not the Architects nor the Engineers). 5 .	1	1
Blanks v. Cantwellgreen moctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992“So stated, plaintiff’s points are mere abstract, conclusionary observations which totally fail to state wherein and why the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and what issue of fact precluded entry of the judgment.” Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.App.1979).	1	1
Terre Du Lac Ass'n v. Terre Du Lac, Inc.green moctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See Terre Du Lac Ass’n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206, 213 (Mo.App.1987).	1	1
Bonenberger v. Associated Dry Goods Co.green moctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991Compare Bonenberger v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 738 S.W.2d 598 (Mo.App.1987) (the provision in the contract did not use the word “indemnify” and did not specifically exempt the contracting party from liability arising from its own “acts or omissions.”) Parenthetically, we note that KBA has the right to enforce the indemnification clause in the contract between Smith Masonry and the State without also being a party to the contract because KBA was the third party beneficiary of that contract.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Nodaway Valley Bank v. E.L. Crawford Construction, Inc. green moctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2015Id. at 829-30 . 2015Id. at 829-30 .	3	2011–2015
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Raytown green mo · 1982 2 sentences 2006The Bhartis and RJ Reynolds rely on Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Raytown, 633 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. banc 1982). 2006The Bhartis and RJ Reynolds rely on Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Raytown, 633 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. banc 1982).	2	2006–2006
American Indemnity Lloyds v. Travelers Property & Casualty Ins. Co. green ca5 · 2003 1 sentence 2005Thus, “an indemnity agreement between the insureds, or a contract *165 ■with an indemnification clause, such as is commonly found in the construction industry, may shift an entire loss to a particular insurer notwithstanding the existence of an other insurance clause in its policy.” Id. at section 219.1, p. 219-7 citing J.	1	2005–2005
J. Walters Const., Inc. v. Gilman Paper Co. green fladistctapp · 1993 1 sentence 2005Walters Const., Inc. v. Gilman Paper Co., 620 So.2d 219 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1993) (applying Georgia law). “[M]ost, if not all, jurisdictions to have faced the question of whether an indemnification agreement could relieve particular insurers of an obligation to pay, without resort to a separate action to enforce the indemnification agreement, have answered in the affirmative.” St.	1	2005–2005
Tokio Marine And Fire Insurance Company Limited v. Employers Insurance Of Wausau green ca2 · 1986 2 sentences 2004In Tokio Marine, the court held that the promise made in an indemnification clause “extends only as far as the scope of the liability insurance.” Id. at 105 . 2004The court stated that “[t]o rule otherwise would ignore the purpose of a waiver of subrogation provision, which ‘in effect simply require[s]one of the parties to the contract to provide [property] insurance for all of the parties.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).	1	2004–2004
Butler v. Mitchell-Hugeback, Inc. green mo · 1995 1 sentence 2004Bank bases its argument on the holding in Butler, 895 S.W.2d at 21-22 .	1	2004–2004
Biller Ex Rel. Summers v. Big John Tree Transplanter Manufacturing & Truck Sales, Inc. green moctapp · 1990 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993
Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co. green moctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993
Gatlin v. Truman Medical Center green moctapp · 1989 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993
Stewart v. Little neutral moctapp · 1990 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993
Holland ex rel. Gardner v. W.A.S.P. Inc. green moctapp · 1992 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993
J.M.F. v. Emerson green moctapp · 1989 1 sentence 1993NOTES [1] For cases holding that plaintiff had pled the "something extra" required to impose tort liability upon a co-worker, see Biller v. Big John Tree Transplanter Mfg., 795 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1990); Martinez v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 652 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1983). [2] For cases holding that a plaintiff failed to plead actionable negligence against a co-employee because he or she failed to plead "something more" than the mere failure on the part of a co-employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work, see Holland v. W.A.S.P., Inc., 833 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1992); Stewart v. Little, 797	1	1993–1993

Where else courts name it

NY 344 (1962–2026) CT 67 (1976–2017) CA 59 (1959–2025) NJ 42 (1960–2026) OH 38 (1975–2026) MA 37 (1976–2026) IL 35 (1968–2026) FL 34 (1973–2025) DE 34 (1978–2026) IN 31 (1977–2025) PA 31 (1984–2024) GA 24 (1974–2025) TX 24 (1969–2026) NM 21 (1976–2021) WA 18 (1984–2025) MI 17 (1980–2025) IA 16 (1994–2023) MO 15 (1982–2015) VA 13 (1992–2026) MD 13 (1985–2019) MN 11 (1957–2025) DC 11 (1983–2011) ME 10 (1994–2019) VT 10 (1978–2026) MT 8 (1972–2008) LA 7 (1972–2010) UT 7 (1989–2018) RI 6 (1983–2011) WI 6 (1984–2021) CO 6 (1986–2025) AZ 6 (1969–2024) AL 6 (2000–2017) KS 6 (1978–2020) NC 6 (2002–2017) OR 6 (2005–2013) AK 5 (1981–2020) NE 5 (1973–2022) OK 5 (1989–2011) SC 4 (2003–2019) NV 3 (2009–2012) AR 2 (2013–2013) TN 2 (2008–2013) KY 2 (2005–2007) NH 2 (1999–2006) ID 2 (1977–2009) MS 2 (2004–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check