indemnity clause in Louisiana

2022In Berry v. Orleans Parish School Board, the Louisiana Supreme Court also interpreted an indemnity clause in an agreement between Lighthouse of the Blind in New Orleans, Inc. (“Lighthouse”), and Orleans Parish School Board for “mobility training services” and interpreted the indemnity clause using the same “but-for” test that the Louisiana Supreme Court had employed in Perkins. 01- 3283, p. 1 (La. 6/21/02), 830 So.2d 283, 283 .

2022The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the indemnity clause applied because “[b]ut for Lighthouse’s employment of [its employee] to perform services 10 under the contract for these students, [the Lighthouse employee] would not have had access to the children.” Id. at p. 6, 830 So.2d at 287 .

2019In order to determine whether an indemnitee may be indemnified against its own negligent acts, the supreme court discussed in Berry the case of Arnold v. Stupp Corp ., 205 So.2d 797 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), writ not considered , 251 La. 936 , 207 So.2d 540 (1968), wherein the appellate court surveyed the case law and noted the majority and minority view on this issue: The general rule is stated thus: 'A contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms.

2019In order to determine whether an indemnitee may be indemnified against its own negligent acts, the supreme court discussed in Berry the case of Arnold v. Stupp Corp ., 205 So.2d 797 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), writ not considered , 251 La. 936 , 207 So.2d 540 (1968), wherein the appellate court surveyed the case law and noted the majority and minority view on this issue: The general rule is stated thus: 'A contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms.

2019In order to determine whether an indemnitee may be indemnified against its own negligent acts, the supreme court discussed in Berry the case of Arnold v. Stupp Corp ., 205 So.2d 797 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), writ not considered , 251 La. 936 , 207 So.2d 540 (1968), wherein the appellate court surveyed the case law and noted the majority and minority view on this issue: The general rule is stated thus: 'A contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms.

2019In order to determine whether an indemnitee may be indemnified against its own negligent acts, the supreme court discussed in Berry the case of Arnold v. Stupp Corp ., 205 So.2d 797 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), writ not considered , 251 La. 936 , 207 So.2d 540 (1968), wherein the appellate court surveyed the case law and noted the majority and minority view on this issue: The general rule is stated thus: 'A contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms.

2017Id., 04-1459, p. 17, 907 So.2d at 51 .

2006In Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Government, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 37 , the court held unambiguously that any claim under an indemnity-defense clause in a contract is premature until the indemnitee has actually made payment or sustained a loss.

2017The Third Circuit cited to Nas-sif, 739 So.2d 183 , when considering the indemnity claim: Indemnity in its most basic sense means reimbursement, and may lie when one party discharges a liability which another rightfully should have assumed.

2002In Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 98-3193, pp. 2-3 (La.6/29/99), 739 So.2d 183, 185 , the supreme court stated the following concerning the action for indemnity: Indemnity in its most basic sense means reimbursement, and may lie when one party discharges a liability which another rightfully should have assumed.

2004An indemnity claim based on unjust enrichment principles has been recognized to "fill a gap in the law where no express remedy is provided." Mouton v. State, 525 So.2d 1136, 1142 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 526 So.2d 1112 (La.1988).

2002An indemnity claim based on unjust enrichment principles is recognized "to fill a gap in the law where no express remedy is provided." Mouton v. State, 525 So.2d 1136, 1142 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 526 So.2d 1112 (La.1988).

2024App. 4th Cir. 12/ 15/ 10), 54 So. 3d 180 , 184- 85, writ denied, 2011- 0128 ( La. 3/ 4/ 11), 58 So.3d 481 ( ample factual testimony from the trial of the underlying claim, which was offered as evidentiary support in defendant' s motion for summary judgment, established claimant at fault for negligence so as to support the dismissal of the indemnity claim).

2024App. 4th Cir. 12/ 15/ 10), 54 So. 3d 180 , 184- 85, writ denied, 2011- 0128 ( La. 3/ 4/ 11), 58 So.3d 481 ( ample factual testimony from the trial of the underlying claim, which was offered as evidentiary support in defendant' s motion for summary judgment, established claimant at fault for negligence so as to support the dismissal of the indemnity claim).

2013CFS also argued that this court’s holding in Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08) , 987 So.2d 838 , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), 994 So.2d 537 , supported its position that it did not owe [sindemnity to Priola based on the language of the indemnity clause and Louisiana’s comparative fault law.

2013CFS also argued that this court’s holding in Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08) , 987 So.2d 838 , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), 994 So.2d 537 , supported its position that it did not owe [sindemnity to Priola based on the language of the indemnity clause and Louisiana’s comparative fault law.

2009Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., 84 F.3d 172 (5th Cir.La.1996), also involves an indemnity clause and not a settlement and release.

2009Id.

2009Id.

2009On appeal, our supreme court was called upon to “consider whether the indemnity clause in the public contract between [the contractor] and the [c]ity imposed a duty upon [the contractor] as a matter of law to defend the [c]ity and [the engineering firm] against the plaintiffs claims.” Id. at 51 .

2009Ctr., 05-687, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/27/06), 925 So.2d 661, 662 .

2006App. 1 Cir. 9/15/06), 943 So.2d 1156 , and cannot now be disturbed. [4] An appellate court shall render any judgment that is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal, and may tax the costs of the lower or appellate court against any party to the suit, as in its judgment may be considered equitable.

2006See Richey v. Moore, 840 So.2d at 1268 ; Burns v. McDermott, Inc., 95-0195 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/95) , 665 So.2d 76, 79 ; Wuertz v. Tobias, 512 So.2d 1209, 1212 (La.App. 5 Cir.1987).

2005See, e.g., Jenkins v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 619 So.2d 1188, 1199 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993) (holding that La.Rev.Stat. 38:2216(G) precluded the DOTD from recovering under an indemnity clause against a contractor where the DOTD had been found concurrently negligent with the contractor), rev'd in part on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1050 (La.1993).