indemnity clause in Nevada

2011Finally, we address whether Reyburn had a duty to defend under the contract and, if so, whether Reyburn was responsible for the entirety of Plaster's attorney fees and costs. *274 Interpretation of the indemnity clause Typically, "[contractual indemnity is where, pursuant to a contractual provision, two parties agree that one party will reimburse the other party for liability resulting from the former's work." Medallion Dev. v. Converse Consultants, 113 Nev. 27, 33 , 930 P.2d 115, 119 (1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Doctors Company v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 654 , 98

2011Finally, we address whether Reyburn had a duty to defend under the contract and, if so, whether Reyburn was responsible for the entirety of Plaster's attorney fees and costs. *274 Interpretation of the indemnity clause Typically, "[contractual indemnity is where, pursuant to a contractual provision, two parties agree that one party will reimburse the other party for liability resulting from the former's work." Medallion Dev. v. Converse Consultants, 113 Nev. 27, 33 , 930 P.2d 115, 119 (1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Doctors Company v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 654 , 98

2011Finally, we address whether Reyburn had a duty to defend under the contract and, if so, whether Reyburn was responsible for the entirety of Plaster's attorney fees and costs. *274 Interpretation of the indemnity clause Typically, "[contractual indemnity is where, pursuant to a contractual provision, two parties agree that one party will reimburse the other party for liability resulting from the former's work." Medallion Dev. v. Converse Consultants, 113 Nev. 27, 33 , 930 P.2d 115, 119 (1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Doctors Company v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 654 , 98

2011Finally, we address whether Reyburn had a duty to defend under the contract and, if so, whether Reyburn was responsible for the entirety of Plaster's attorney fees and costs. *274 Interpretation of the indemnity clause Typically, "[contractual indemnity is where, pursuant to a contractual provision, two parties agree that one party will reimburse the other party for liability resulting from the former's work." Medallion Dev. v. Converse Consultants, 113 Nev. 27, 33 , 930 P.2d 115, 119 (1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Doctors Company v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 654 , 98

2013See id. at 340-41 , 255 P.3d at 275 (interpreting an indemnity clause to only cover the negligence of the in-demnitor because the clause did not explicitly state that the indemnitor had a duty to indemnify absent negligence on its part); George L.

2013See id. at 340-41 , 255 P.3d at 275 (interpreting an indemnity clause to only cover the negligence of the in-demnitor because the clause did not explicitly state that the indemnitor had a duty to indemnify absent negligence on its part); George L.

2012Co., 202 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Cal. 2009) (“In the context of noninsurance indemnity agreements, if a party seeks to be indemnified for its own active negligence, or regardless of the indemnitor’s fault, the contractual language on the point must be particularly clear and explicit, and will be construed strictly against the indemnitee.” (internal quotations omitted)); Crawford, 187 P.3d at 430 (“Though indemnity agreements resemble liability insurance policies, rules for interpreting the two classes of contracts do differ significantly.”); Reyburn, 127 Nev. at 344 , 255 P.3d at 277 (contrasting “an

2011Because we hold that an indemnitor's duty to defend an indemnitee is generally limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor's scope of work and does not include defending against the negligence of other subcontractors or the indemnitee's own negligence, see Crawford, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 721 , 187 P.3d at 429 ; Henthorne, 764 N.E.2d at 760 , we conclude that the district court erred in awarding Plaster its total amount of attorney fees and costs without first apportioning those fees and costs actually incurred by Plaster in defending against those claims directly attributed to Reybu

2013See Canfora v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 121 Nev. 771, 779 , 121 P.3d 599, 605 (2005) (“Whether an individual is an intended third-party beneficiary, however, depends on the parties’ intent, gleaned from reading the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances under which it was entered.” (internal quotations omitted)).

2013See Canfora v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 121 Nev. 771, 779 , 121 P.3d 599, 605 (2005) (“Whether an individual is an intended third-party beneficiary, however, depends on the parties’ intent, gleaned from reading the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances under which it was entered.” (internal quotations omitted)).

2012Further, the court interpreted the provision “that the indemnity clause [would] apply ‘regardless of whether or not such claim . . . [was] caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder’ ” as simply a clarification “that any contributory negligence by [the indemnitees would] not bar their indemnification for damages due to [the in-demnitor’s] negligence.” Id. at 380.

2012Thus, in construing the entire provision, the Pennsylvania court held that the “language . . . easily read to only indemnify [the indemnitees] for that portion of damages caused by the negligence of [the indemnitor].” Id. at 381.

2012Co., 202 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Cal. 2009) (“In the context of noninsurance indemnity agreements, if a party seeks to be indemnified for its own active negligence, or regardless of the indemnitor’s fault, the contractual language on the point must be particularly clear and explicit, and will be construed strictly against the indemnitee.” (internal quotations omitted)); Crawford, 187 P.3d at 430 (“Though indemnity agreements resemble liability insurance policies, rules for interpreting the two classes of contracts do differ significantly.”); Reyburn, 127 Nev. at 344 , 255 P.3d at 277 (contrasting “an

2011On the other hand, other states, such as New Mexico, have anti-indemnity legislation that addresses concurrent negligence and prevents an indemnitee from "contract[ing] away liability for his own percentage of negligence." Guitard v. Gulf Oil Co., 100 N.M. 358 , 670 P.2d 969, 972 (N.M.Ct.

2011On the other hand, other states, such as New Mexico, have anti-indemnity legislation that addresses concurrent negligence and prevents an indemnitee from "contract[ing] away liability for his own percentage of negligence." Guitard v. Gulf Oil Co., 100 N.M. 358 , 670 P.2d 969, 972 (N.M.Ct.

2011Eng. & Const. v. Johnson & Turner Paint., 140 Cal.App.3d 1011 , 189 Cal.Rptr. 824, 827 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).

2011Eng. & Const. v. Johnson & Turner Paint., 140 Cal.App.3d 1011 , 189 Cal.Rptr. 824, 827 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).

2011Because the clause at issue here is not explicit, and because we must strictly construe the indemnity clause's language, id. at ___, 237 P.3d at 97 , we conclude that there must be a showing of negligence on Reyburn's part prior to triggering Reyburn's duty to indemnify Plaster.

2011Because the clause at issue here is not explicit, and because we must strictly construe the indemnity clause’s language, id. at 325, 237 P.3d at 97, we conclude that there must be a showing of negligence on Reyburn’s part prior to triggering Reyburn’s duty to indemnify Plaster.

2011See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. ___ , 212 P.3d 318 (2009); United Natl.

2011See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300 , 212 P.3d 318 (2009); United Nat’l Ins.

1997In Piedmont, we explained that restitution forms the basis for implied indemnity and that indemnity is only available “so long as the indemnitee is free from active wrongdoing regarding the injury to the plaintiff.” Piedmont, 99 Nev. at 527-28, 665 P.2d at 259 .

1997In Piedmont, we explained that restitution forms the basis for implied indemnity and that indemnity is only available “so long as the indemnitee is free from active wrongdoing regarding the injury to the plaintiff.” Piedmont, 99 Nev. at 527-28, 665 P.2d at 259 .

1997See Obstetrics and Gynecologists v. Pepper, 101 Nev. 105, 107 , 693 P.2d 1259, 1260-61 (1985); Cobb v. Snohomish County, 829 P.2d 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).

1997See Obstetrics and Gynecologists v. Pepper, 101 Nev. 105, 107 , 693 P.2d 1259, 1260-61 (1985); Cobb v. Snohomish County, 829 P.2d 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).