9 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lesofski Ex Rel. Lesofski v. Ravalli County Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2015Inc., 151 Mont. 104, 107 , 439 P.2d 370, 371 (1968). ¶9 Welles argues that the District Court erred by interpreting the indemnity clause to require negligent or wrongful conduct. 2015Inc., 151 Mont. 104, 107 , 439 P.2d 370, 371 (1968). ¶9 Welles argues that the District Court erred by interpreting the indemnity clause to require negligent or wrongful conduct. | 2 | 2 |
Nave v. Harlan Jones Drillinggreen2 sentences2009Furthermore, where a contract imposes a nondelegable duty to ensure a safe place to work, a general contractor “cannot avoid liability by attempting to shift the responsibility to someone else.” Nave v. Harlan Jones Drilling, 252 Mont. 199, 203 , 827 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1992). ¶19 United National argues that the indemnity clause in the contract does not apply because the Scaffolding Act prohibits Swank from shifting its liability to Booth for breach of nondelegable duties. 2009Furthermore, where a contract imposes a nondelegable duty to ensure a safe place to work, a general contractor “cannot avoid liability by attempting to shift the responsibility to someone else.” Nave v. Harlan Jones Drilling, 252 Mont. 199, 203 , 827 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1992). ¶19 United National argues that the indemnity clause in the contract does not apply because the Scaffolding Act prohibits Swank from shifting its liability to Booth for breach of nondelegable duties. | 1 | 1 |
Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp.green2 sentences2009Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp., 1999 MT 186, ¶¶ 12, 25 , 295 Mont. 318 , 983 P.2d 943 . 2009Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp., 1999 MT 186, ¶¶ 12, 25 , 295 Mont. 318 , 983 P.2d 943 . | 1 | 1 |
Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2005See Batton, 736 P.2d at 6-7 . | 1 | 1 |
Linder v. Missoula Countygreen2 sentences1996Linder v. Missoula County (1992), 251 Mont. 292, 299 , 824 P.2d 1004, 1008 (quoting Schiess v. Bates (Idaho 1984), 693 P.2d 440, 442 ) (citing St. 1996Linder v. Missoula County (1992), 251 Mont. 292, 299 , 824 P.2d 1004, 1008 (quoting Schiess v. Bates (Idaho 1984), 693 P.2d 440, 442 ) (citing St. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeShaw v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017DeShaw, 155 Mont. at 359-61 , 472 P.2d at 301-02 . 2017DeShaw, 155 Mont. at 359-61 , 472 P.2d at 301-02 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP
green
2 sentences2015Section 28-3-501, MCA; Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82, ¶ 17 , 364 Mont. 455 , 276 P.3d 922 . 2015Section 28-3-501, MCA; Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82, ¶ 17 , 364 Mont. 455 , 276 P.3d 922 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Continental Heller v. AMTECH MECHANICAL SERV.
green
2 sentences2015The court rejected the argument that indemnity turned on whether the contractor was negligent, noting that the contract stated that the duty to indemnify applied to “any acts or omissions,” and not simply “willful misconduct or negligent conduct.” Heller, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 505 , 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 671 . ¶12 What was true for the indemnity clauses in Fairbanks and Heller *177 holds trae for the indemnity clause in Welles’s contract with Jensen. 2015The court rejected the argument that indemnity turned on whether the contractor was negligent, noting that the contract stated that the duty to indemnify applied to “any acts or omissions,” and not simply “willful misconduct or negligent conduct.” Heller, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 505 , 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 671 . ¶12 What was true for the indemnity clauses in Fairbanks and Heller *177 holds trae for the indemnity clause in Welles’s contract with Jensen. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Roen Design Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Welles directs the Court’s attention to cases in which other courts interpreted similar indemnity clauses and did not require proof of negligence or wrongdoing. ¶10 In Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Roen Design Ass’n., Inc., 727 P.2d 758 (Alaska 1986), the Alaska Supreme Court interpreted a clause in which a contractor promised to indemnify a principal for particular losses “incurred for or on account of injuries or damages to persons or property as a result of any act or omission of the Contractor in the performances pursuant to this contract.” Fairbanks, 727 P.2d at 759 . 2015Welles directs the Court’s attention to cases in which other courts interpreted similar indemnity clauses and did not require proof of negligence or wrongdoing. ¶10 In Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Roen Design Ass’n., Inc., 727 P.2d 758 (Alaska 1986), the Alaska Supreme Court interpreted a clause in which a contractor promised to indemnify a principal for particular losses “incurred for or on account of injuries or damages to persons or property as a result of any act or omission of the Contractor in the performances pursuant to this contract.” Fairbanks, 727 P.2d at 759 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sweet v. Colborn School Supply, Burlington Northern Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Sweet, 639 P.2d at 523 . *271 In light of Sweet , the indemnity clause in Howard S. Wright and the clause at issue in the instant case are not sufficiently “clear and unequivocal” to indemnify a general contractor for its own negligence. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Schiess v. Bates
green
1 sentence1996Linder v. Missoula County (1992), 251 Mont. 292, 299 , 824 P.2d 1004, 1008 (quoting Schiess v. Bates (Idaho 1984), 693 P.2d 440, 442 ) (citing St. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District
green
2 sentences1973A careful reading of the case shows that the quoted language is from a California case (City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School Dist. of Alameda County, 141 Cal.App.2d 733 , 297 P.2d 752 ) and the holding in that case was expressly rejected by this Court in Western Construction Co. Plaintiff cannot successfully compare the fact situation here with Western Construction Co. There the indemnity clause specifically refers to an action arising out of the use of defective equipment, and the only contract between the indemnitee *328 and indemnitor involved the nse of a single piece of equipment, a 1973A careful reading of the case shows that the quoted language is from a California case (City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School Dist. of Alameda County, 141 Cal.App.2d 733 , 297 P.2d 752 ) and the holding in that case was expressly rejected by this Court in Western Construction Co. Plaintiff cannot successfully compare the fact situation here with Western Construction Co. There the indemnity clause specifically refers to an action arising out of the use of defective equipment, and the only contract between the indemnitee *328 and indemnitor involved the nse of a single piece of equipment, a | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.