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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Zurich Insurance Company as Subrogee of the Varsity Golf Club, LTD D/B/A the University of Texas Golf Club v. Barker Roofing, L.P.green2 sentences2014Co. v. Barker Roofing, L.P., 387 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex.Ct.App.2012) (stating "a waiver of subrogation clause substitutes the protection of insurances for the uncertain and expensive protection of liability litigation"). 2014Co. v. Barker Roofing, L.P., 387 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex.Ct.App.2012) (stating “a waiver of subrogation clause substitutes the protection of insurances for the uncertain and expensive protection of liability litigation”). | 3 | 3 |
Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc.green2 sentences2012The gymnasium floor was not analogous to the contents of a building which would not have been covered by the waiver of subrogation clause as discussed in Midwestern Indemnity Co. v. System Builders, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. App. 2004) and Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc., 948 P.2d 9 (Colo. App. 1997). 2012The gymnasium floor was not analogous to the contents of a building which would not have been covered by the waiver of subrogation clause as discussed in Midwestern Indemnity Co. v. System [Systems ] Builders, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 661 (Ind.App.2004) and Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc., 948 P.2d 9 (Colo.App.1997). | 1 | 3 |
Midwestern Indemnity Co. v. Systems Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2012The gymnasium floor was not analogous to the contents of a building which would not have been covered by the waiver of subrogation clause as discussed in Midwestern Indemnity Co. v. System Builders, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. App. 2004) and Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc., 948 P.2d 9 (Colo. App. 1997). 2012The gymnasium floor was not analogous to the contents of a building which would not have been covered by the waiver of subrogation clause as discussed in Midwestern Indemnity Co. v. System [Systems ] Builders, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 661 (Ind.App.2004) and Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc., 948 P.2d 9 (Colo.App.1997). | 1 | 3 |
S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.green2 sentences2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Partridgegreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Miller, 734 NE2d at 1064-1065 (affirming the trial court's determination that the children were third party beneficiaries). 2004See, e.g., Miller, 734 N.E.2d at 1064-1065 (affirming the trial court's determination that the children were third party beneficiaries). | 1 | 1 |
South Tippecanoe School Building Corp. v. Shambaugh & Son, Inc.green2 sentences2004In Sham-baugh, we addressed the issue of whether certain subcontractors were beneficiaries of the waiver of subrogation clause contained within the construction contract. 182 Ind.App. at 3854 , 395 N.E.2d at 328 . 2004In Sham-baugh, we addressed the issue of whether certain subcontractors were beneficiaries of the waiver of subrogation clause contained within the construction contract. 182 Ind.App. at 3854 , 395 N.E.2d at 328 . | 1 | 1 |
Morsches Lumber, Inc. v. Probstgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Morsches Lumber, Inc. v. Probst, 180 Ind.App. 202, 206 , 388 N.E.2d 284, 287 (holding that owner's negligence claim was barred by the construction contract requirement to provide insurance); Shambaugh & Son, Inc., 395 N.E.2d at 333 (holding that waiver of subrogation barred owner's negligence claim). 2004See, e.g., Morsches Lumber, Inc. v. Probst, 180 Ind.App. 202, 206 , 388 N.E.2d 284, 287 (holding that owner's negligence claim was barred by the construction contract requirement to provide insurance); Shambaugh & Son, Inc., 395 N.E.2d at 333 (holding that waiver of subrogation barred owner's negligence claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc.green2 sentences2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against | 1 | 1 |
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.