Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc.green2 sentences2015(Italics added, boldface omitted; see Zalkind, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025 .) The Rideaus’ hypothetical indemnity claim would be similar to their underlying breach of contract claim, to recover loss sustained by reason of the poor performance of the Instructions, except that an indemnity action would bring in the attorney fees language in the hold harmless clause. 2015(Zalkind, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025 .) The Rideaus' hypothetical indemnity claim would be similar to their underlying breach of contract claim, to recover loss sustained by reason of the poor performance of the Instructions, except that an indemnity action would bring in the attorney fees language in the hold harmless clause. | 2 | 4 |
Diaz v. United California Bankgreen2 sentences2015Although the [trial] court does not have to reach this issue here, it does not appear the hold harmless clause would insulate [Stewart Title] from liability. [Citations.]” The trial court was specifically relying on public policy grounds, which establish that “[w]here the public interest is affected the exculpatory clause will be held invalid.” (Diaz v. United California Bank (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 161, 171 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; see Akin v. Business Title Corp. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 153, 157-159 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) For purposes of analyzing the current attorney fees entitlement questions, we 2015Although the [trial] court does not have to reach this issue here, it does not appear the hold harmless clause would insulate [Stewart Title] from liability. [Citations.]” The trial court was specifically relying on public policy grounds, which establish that “[w]here the public interest is affected the exculpatory clause will be held invalid.” (Diaz v. United California Bank (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 161, 171 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; see Akin v. Business Title Corp. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 153, 157-159 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) For purposes of analyzing the current attorney fees entitlement questions, we | 2 | 4 |
Akin v. Business Title Corp.green2 sentences2015Although the [trial] court does not have to reach this issue here, it does not appear the hold harmless clause would insulate [Stewart Title] from liability. [Citations.]” The trial court was specifically relying on public policy grounds, which establish that “[w]here the public interest is affected the exculpatory clause will be held invalid.” (Diaz v. United California Bank (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 161, 171 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; see Akin v. Business Title Corp. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 153, 157-159 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) For purposes of analyzing the current attorney fees entitlement questions, we 2015Although the [trial] court does not have to reach this issue here, it does not appear the hold harmless clause would insulate [Stewart Title] from liability. [Citations.]” The trial court was specifically relying on public policy grounds, which establish that “[w]here the public interest is affected the exculpatory clause will be held invalid.” (Diaz v. United California Bank (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 161, 171 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; see Akin v. Business Title Corp. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 153, 157-159 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) For purposes of analyzing the current attorney fees entitlement questions, we | 2 | 4 |
SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLCgreen1 sentence2025(Id. at pp. 1472-1473; Variel, 3 The provision read: “In consideration for your willingness to act as my broker in this transaction, I agree to hold you harmless from any loss, expense, claim or responsibility arising out of this transaction.” (Blankenheim, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 1470 .) 13 supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 154 [Section 1668 nullifies a general release of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation].) Appellants assert a cause of action for breach of contract. | 1 | 1 |
Westamerica Bank v. City of Berkeleygreen2 sentences2025The hold harmless clause in paragraph nine of the escrow agreement entitled the Bank to rely on the City’s written notification of default and demand to draw upon the securities in the account without fear of liability. ( Westamerica, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 613.) The allegations of the first amended complaint combined with the escrow agreement’s terms do not show the Bank faced a valid threat of double vexation. 2025The hold harmless clause in paragraph nine of the escrow agreement entitled the Bank to rely on the City’s written notification of default and demand to draw upon the securities in the account without fear of liability. ( Westamerica, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 613.) The allegations of the first amended complaint combined with the escrow agreement’s terms do not show the Bank faced a valid threat of double vexation. | 1 | 1 |
ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc.green1 sentence2014Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 395 ; Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Assn. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1159 ; see ASP Properties Group v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1267 [where extrinsic evidence is not in conflict, construction of an agreement is a question of law for reviewing court's independent review].) Elizabeth's argument—that a condition precedent to the hold harmless clause was not satisfied by Bradley's failure to give notice of his intention to pay on the debt—does not depend on a factual situation that is open to controversy. | 1 | 1 |
Money Store Investment Corp. v. Southern California Bankgreen1 sentence2013(Money Store Investment Corp. v. Southern California Bank (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 722, 731 (Money Store).) As the Money Store court explained: "In essence, the Money Store alleges the [escrow holder] breached a duty to it by failing to perform as specified in the Money Store's instructions. not have to reach this issue here, it does not appear the hold harmless clause would insulate [Stewart Title] from liability. | 1 | 1 |
United States Elevator Corp. v. Pacific Investment Co.green2 sentences2011But even assuming the hold harmless clause does not protect the Bank from being sued by Amtz (see, e.g., Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1024 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ]), the Bank’s risk is nonetheless minimal because defense of any such lawsuit immediately can be tendered to the Bank’s indemnitor(s). 8 (United States Elevator Corp. v. Pacific Investment Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 122, 125-126 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ]; Civ. 2011But even assuming the hold harmless clause does not protect the Bank from being sued by Amtz (see, e.g., Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1024 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ]), the Bank’s risk is nonetheless minimal because defense of any such lawsuit immediately can be tendered to the Bank’s indemnitor(s). 8 (United States Elevator Corp. v. Pacific Investment Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 122, 125-126 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ]; Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Queen Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. TCB Property Managementgreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., Queen Villas Homeowners Assn. v. TCB Property Management (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ].) That issue is not before us. 2011(See, e.g., Queen Villas Homeowners Assn. v. TCB Property Management (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ].) That issue is not before us. | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Firestone Escrow Co. v. Food Giant Markets, Inc.green2 sentences2011(Cf. Pacific Firestone Escrow Co. v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 155, 158 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 570 ] [escrow agreement carrying out statutory requirements of liquor license transfer expressly provides that escrow holder has the right to interplead funds if a dispute arises among creditors to be paid from escrowed funds].) We do not decide the question of whether the hold harmless clause could prevent Amtz and the City from suing the Bank for complying with the written notifications enumerated in the escrow agreement. 2011(Cf. Pacific Firestone Escrow Co. v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 155, 158 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 570 ] [escrow agreement carrying out statutory requirements of liquor license transfer expressly provides that escrow holder has the right to interplead funds if a dispute arises among creditors to be paid from escrowed funds].) We do not decide the question of whether the hold harmless clause could prevent Amtz and the City from suing the Bank for complying with the written notifications enumerated in the escrow agreement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Halliday v. Greene
green
2 sentences2018The trial court granted nonsuit after finding that the hold harmless clause precluded recovery. ( Id . at p. 485, 53 Cal.Rptr. 267 .) Because the construction defect *794 constituted a violation of a safety order, the reviewing court concluded that section 1668, rendered the hold harmless clause ineffective. ( Halliday , supra , at p. 488, 53 Cal.Rptr. 267 .) Halliday offers appellant no assistance. 2018The trial court granted nonsuit after finding that the hold harmless clause precluded recovery. ( Id . at p. 485, 53 Cal.Rptr. 267 .) Because the construction defect *794 constituted a violation of a safety order, the reviewing court concluded that section 1668, rendered the hold harmless clause ineffective. ( Halliday , supra , at p. 488, 53 Cal.Rptr. 267 .) Halliday offers appellant no assistance. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Campbell v. Scripps Bank
green
2 sentences2015Each contract containing indemnification language or attorney fees provisions must be analyzed on its own terms, and in context, pursuant to the usual rules of contract interpretation for determining the actual intent of the parties. ( Campbell, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1336-1337; see Appalachian Ins. 2015Each contract containing indemnification language or attorney fees provisions must be analyzed on its own terms, and in context, pursuant to the usual rules of contract interpretation for determining the actual intent of the parties. ( Campbell, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1336-1337; see Appalachian Ins. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Blankenheim v. E. F. Hutton & Co.
green
2 sentences2025(Id. at pp. 1472-1473; Variel, 3 The provision read: “In consideration for your willingness to act as my broker in this transaction, I agree to hold you harmless from any loss, expense, claim or responsibility arising out of this transaction.” (Blankenheim, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 1470 .) 13 supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 154 [Section 1668 nullifies a general release of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation].) Appellants assert a cause of action for breach of contract. 2025They sued for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. ( Blankenheim, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1466, 1472, fn. 4.) The brokerage secured summary judgment based on a hold-harmless clause.3 The court reversed the ruling on appeal, holding that plaintiffs’ claims of misrepresentation fell within the fraud exclusion in Section 1668; the hold-harmless clause was void to the extent it exempted the brokerage from liability for its misrepresentations. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 395 ; Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Assn. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1159 ; see ASP Properties Group v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1267 [where extrinsic evidence is not in conflict, construction of an agreement is a question of law for reviewing court's independent review].) Elizabeth's argument—that a condition precedent to the hold harmless clause was not satisfied by Bradley's failure to give notice of his intention to pay on the debt—does not depend on a factual situation that is open to controversy. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Ass'n
green
1 sentence2014Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 395 ; Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Assn. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1159 ; see ASP Properties Group v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1267 [where extrinsic evidence is not in conflict, construction of an agreement is a question of law for reviewing court's independent review].) Elizabeth's argument—that a condition precedent to the hold harmless clause was not satisfied by Bradley's failure to give notice of his intention to pay on the debt—does not depend on a factual situation that is open to controversy. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Southern California Gas Co. v. Ventura Pipe Line Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2013Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157 .) Sousamian’s appeal is primarily grounded on the assertion Spyksma’s $45,000 payment to the lender qualified as voluntary, because it was made for the purpose of protecting her own credit rating and not in response to the compulsion of an existing “legal liability.” (Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Ventura etc. Co. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 253, 257 .) He claims that such a “voluntary” payment would not trigger his obligation to indemnify Spyskma under the hold harmless clause. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Tunkl v. Regents of University of California
green
1 sentence2013See Diaz v. United California Bank (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 161, 171 [(Diaz)]; Akin v. Business Title Corp. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 153, 157 [(Akin)]." In Akin, the court applied Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92 (Tunkl), and concluded, on public policy grounds, that "that the exculpatory clause before us cannot relieve the escrow company from liability." (Akin, supra, 264 Cal.App.2d at p. 159 ; see also Diaz, supra 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 171 [citing Akin and Tunkl and stating, "Where the public interest is affected the exculpatory clause will be held invalid"].) We need | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
green
1 sentence2013Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157 .) Sousamian’s appeal is primarily grounded on the assertion Spyksma’s $45,000 payment to the lender qualified as voluntary, because it was made for the purpose of protecting her own credit rating and not in response to the compulsion of an existing “legal liability.” (Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Ventura etc. Co. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 253, 257 .) He claims that such a “voluntary” payment would not trigger his obligation to indemnify Spyskma under the hold harmless clause. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gaggero v. County of San Diego
green
1 sentence2009Further, the court stated that the Regional Board’s orders and instructions were subject to interpretation and did not permit resolution of the indemnity request as a matter of law. (§ 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Two weeks later, after oral argument on the County’s summary judgment motion, the trial court confirmed its tentative ruling on that motion, finding that the entire matter was time-barred, because “the landfill is an improvement within the meaning of CCP § 337.15(a).” The court relied on Gaggero, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 609 , to support its conclusions that in this case, “no matter how penned | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.