In the interpretation of a contract of indemnity, the following rules are to be applied, unless a contrary intention appears: 1. Upon an indemnity against liability, expressly, or in other equivalent terms, the person indemnified is entitled to recover upon becoming liable. 2. Upon an indemnity against claims or demands, or damages or costs, expressly, or in other equivalent terms, the person indemnified is not entitled to recover without payment thereof. 3. An indemnity against claims or demands, or liability, expressly or in other equivalent terms, embraces the costs of defense against such claims, demands or liability incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of reasonable discretion. 4. The person indemnifying is bound, on request of the person indemnified, to defend actions or proceedings brought against the latter in respect to the matters embraced by the indemnity; but the person indemnified has the right to conduct such defense, if he chooses to do so. 5. If, after request, the person indemnifying neglects to defend the person indemnified, a recovery against the latter, suffered by him in good faith, is conclusive in his favor against the former. 6. If the person indemnifying, whether he is a principal or a surety in the agreement, has not reasonable notice of the action of proceedings against the person indemnified, or is not allowed to control its defense, judgment against the latter is only presumptive evidence against the former. 7. A stipulation that a judgment against the person indemnified shall be conclusive upon the person indemnifying, is applicable if he had a good defense upon the merits, which, by want of ordinary care, he failed to establish in the action. R.L.1910, § 1080.
Notes of Decisions
Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 785 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 3× “The wholesaler and retailer argue that their attorneys' fees must be paid by the manufacturer because of 15 O.S.1981 § 427(3). That provision states: “An indemnity against claims or demands, or liability, expressly or in other equivalent terms, embraces the costs of defense…”
Greene v. Circle Ins. Co., 557 P.2d 422 (Okla. 1976).
“Appellant relies almost exclusively on the provisions of 15 O.S.1971, § 427, which provides in part: “In the interpretation of a contract of indemnity, the following rules are to be applied, unless a contrary intention appears : ****** “6.”
Potter v. Wilson, 609 P.2d 1278 (Okla. 1980).
“15 O.S.1971 § 427(1) and (2). The former gives rise to a claim against the indemnitor on his default, while the latter is litigable only after the indemnitee has satisfied the delinquent obligation.”
Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Davila, 489 P.2d 760 (Okla. 1971).
· cites it 2× “15 O.S.1961, § 427, subdivision 2. Metropolitan argues in substance, that because the phrase “who is or may be liable” is contained in Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where it has been held to effect an acceleration of unaccrued indemnity claims so as to make…”
Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 551 P.2d 671 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975).
· cites it 3× “15 O.S.1971, § 427 provides in pertinent part : “In the interpretation of a contract of indemnity, the following rules are to be applied, unless a contrary intention appears : “1.”
In Re Cooper Mfg. Corp., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Okla. 2001).
“[1] Holmes wants to characterize Home's indemnity claim as being based on an express contract, and not a quasi-contract, because of its belief that 15 O.S. § 427 imposes a rigid requirement that a formal and particularized "tender" of the underlying lawsuit be made before an…”
Specialized Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 825 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 2012).
“…§ 22-02-07. See Cal. Civil Code § 2778 ; 18 Guam Code Ann. § 30107 ; MontCode Ann. §§ 28-11-313 to 28-11-317; Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427 ; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 56-3-7 to 56-3-15. However, ease law interpreting and applying these other statutes to indemnity contracts is…”
Hausler v. Felton, 457 F. App'x 727 (10th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Upon an indemnity against claims or demands, or damages or costs, expressly, or in other equivalent terms, the person indemnified is not entitled to recover without payment thereof Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427 (1) and (2) (emphasis added); see also Maryland Cas.”
Hausler v. Felton, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (N.D. Okla. 2010).
“1988); see Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427 (1) & (2). Therefore, in order to assess when Plaintiffs claim accrued, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs claim is based on indemnity against loss or indemnity against liability.”
Barton v. Home Indem. Co., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Okla. 2001).
“Holmes wants to characterize Home’s indemnity claim as being based on an express contract, and not a quasi-contract, because of its belief that 15 O.S. § 427 imposes a rigid requirement that a formal and particularized "tender” of the underlying lawsuit be made before an…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427(1) — 3 cases
Potter v. Wilson, 609 P.2d 1278 (Okla. 1980).
“15 O.S.1971 § 427(1) and (2). The former gives rise to a claim against the indemnitor on his default, while the latter is litigable only after the indemnitee has satisfied the delinquent obligation.”
Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Davila, 489 P.2d 760 (Okla. 1971).
“15 O.S.1961, § 427, subdivision 2. Metropolitan argues in substance, that because the phrase “who is or may be liable” is contained in Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where it has been held to effect an acceleration of unaccrued indemnity claims so as to make…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427(3) — 1 case
Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 785 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1989).
“The wholesaler and retailer argue that their attorneys' fees must be paid by the manufacturer because of 15 O.S.1981 § 427(3). That provision states: “An indemnity against claims or demands, or liability, expressly or in other equivalent terms, embraces the costs of defense…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 427(4) — 1 case
Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 785 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1989).
“The wholesaler and retailer argue that their attorneys' fees must be paid by the manufacturer because of 15 O.S.1981 § 427(3). That provision states: “An indemnity against claims or demands, or liability, expressly or in other equivalent terms, embraces the costs of defense…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.