indemnity clause in West Virginia

2023We find these allegations sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the issue of contractual indemnity. 17 To the extent that the business court relied on exceptions to the indemnity clause in dismissing Orders Construction, the application of those exceptions is dependent upon resolving whether or not the alleged harm to Pocahontas PSD was caused by WWC’s “preparation or approval of, or the failure to prepare or approve maps, Drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, Change Orders, designs, or Specifications,” or “giving directions or instructions, or failing to give them, if that is

2023Va. 530 , 236 S.E.2d 207 (citation omitted).

2023Co., 797 N.W. 2d 704 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)). 18 The relevant language of the indemnity clause requires Orders Construction and Pipe Plus to indemnify and hold harmless [WWC] . . . from and against all claims, costs, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) . . . .

2015Rather, the H & D Agreement required Medford to obtain insurance to broadly indemnify Elk Run for losses “relating to, resulting from, arising out of, caused by or sustained in connection with, directly or indirectly, [Medford’s] performance of the Work.” 10 The indemnity clause in the Elk Run/Medford agreement is more broad than a clause found to be sufficiently clear in the case of Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates v. Midwest-Raleigh, Inc., 374 F.2d 451 (4th Cir.1967), which is discussed in.Sellers.

2015The Eastern Gas court considered an indemnity agreement requiring the indemnitor to “ ‘protect and indemnify Eastern against loss or damage to property and injury and death to persons resulting from, arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract.’ ” Id., 374 F.2d at 452 .

2004Appellee SSI, however, contends that the key to an indemnity claim — as the Court noted in Harvest Capital — is that the defendant seeking indemnification must show that its "independent actions did not contribute to the injury[.]" In other words, the defendant seeking indemnification must be one "who has committed no independent wrong." 211 W.Va. at 37, 560 S.E.2d at 512 .

2004Appellee SSI, however, contends that the key to an indemnity claim — as the Court noted in Harvest Capital — is that the defendant seeking indemnification must show that its “independent actions did not contribute to the injury[.]” In other words, the defendant seeking indemnification must be one “who has committed no independent wrong.” 211 W.Va. at 37, 560 S.E.2d at 512 .

1995The rule set forth in Howell appears to promote judicial economy by preventing relitigation of previously decided issues, while preserving the indemnitor’s right to establish either a conflict of interest or non-applicability of an indemnity provision.” 90 Ohio App.3d at 616 , 630 N.E.2d at 64-65 .

1995The rule set forth in Howell appears to promote judicial economy by preventing relitigation of previously decided issues, while preserving the indemnitor’s right to establish either a conflict of interest or non-applicability of an indemnity provision.” 90 Ohio App.3d at 616 , 630 N.E.2d at 64-65 .

1993In Valloric v. Dravo Corp., 178 W.Va. 14 , 357 S.E.2d 207 (1987), we held that a broad indemnity clause that specifically exempted the “sole negligence” of the indem-nitee was valid and enforceable under W.Va.Code 55-8-14 [1975].

1993In Valloric v. Dravo Corp., 178 W.Va. 14 , 357 S.E.2d 207 (1987), we held that a broad indemnity clause that specifically exempted the “sole negligence” of the indem-nitee was valid and enforceable under W.Va.Code 55-8-14 [1975].

1987Courts have recognized that an indemnity agreement may be drawn to restrict its scope to actual loss or damage suffered by the indemnitee, but where the terms “claim” or “liability” are used, this bespeaks of a broader liability than the words indemnifying solely against “loss” or “damage.” E.g., Christy v. Menasha Corp., 297 Minn. 334 , 211 N.W.2d 773 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Farmington Heating and Plumbing Co. v. Fischer Sound and Aggregate, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1979); Blain v. Sam Finley, Inc., 226 So.2d 742 (Miss. 1969); 41 Am.

1987Courts have recognized that an indemnity agreement may be drawn to restrict its scope to actual loss or damage suffered by the indemnitee, but where the terms “claim” or “liability” are used, this bespeaks of a broader liability than the words indemnifying solely against “loss” or “damage.” E.g., Christy v. Menasha Corp., 297 Minn. 334 , 211 N.W.2d 773 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Farmington Heating and Plumbing Co. v. Fischer Sound and Aggregate, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1979); Blain v. Sam Finley, Inc., 226 So.2d 742 (Miss. 1969); 41 Am.

1987Courts have recognized that an indemnity agreement may be drawn to restrict its scope to actual loss or damage suffered by the indemnitee, but where the terms “claim” or “liability” are used, this bespeaks of a broader liability than the words indemnifying solely against “loss” or “damage.” E.g., Christy v. Menasha Corp., 297 Minn. 334 , 211 N.W.2d 773 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Farmington Heating and Plumbing Co. v. Fischer Sound and Aggregate, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1979); Blain v. Sam Finley, Inc., 226 So.2d 742 (Miss. 1969); 41 Am.

1987Courts have recognized that an indemnity agreement may be drawn to restrict its scope to actual loss or damage suffered by the indemnitee, but where the terms “claim” or “liability” are used, this bespeaks of a broader liability than the words indemnifying solely against “loss” or “damage.” E.g., Christy v. Menasha Corp., 297 Minn. 334 , 211 N.W.2d 773 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Farmington Heating and Plumbing Co. v. Fischer Sound and Aggregate, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1979); Blain v. Sam Finley, Inc., 226 So.2d 742 (Miss. 1969); 41 Am.

1985See Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 153 F.2d 958 (9th Cir.1946), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Standard Oil, 332 U.S. 301 , 67 S.Ct. 1604 , 91 L.Ed. 2067 (1947); Harris Corp. v. Comair, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 1168, 1174 (E.D.Ky.1981), aff'd, 712 F.2d 1069 (6th Cir.1983); American Mut.