Any clause in a sales contract or collateral document that requires a purchaser or end user of a product to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a manufacturer of a product is contrary to public policy and void and unenforceable if a defect in the design or manufacturing of the product causes an injury or death.
Notes of Decisions
Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 2013 UT 22 (Utah 2013).
· cites it 6× “, UTAH CODE § 78B-6-707 (“Any clause in a sales contract or collateral document that requires a purchaser or end user of a product to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a manufacturer of a product is contrary to public policy and void and unenforceable if a defect in the design…”
Blaisdell v. Dentrix Dental Sys., Inc., 284 P.3d 616 (Utah 2012).
· cites it 7× “12 "The language of Utah Code section 78B-6-707, like section 13-8-1, however, indicates the legislature's intent to void indemnification provisions.”
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 (Utah 2017).
· cites it 2× “Utah Code § 78B-6-707. That implies that contractual indemnification clauses are presumptively valid as between a manufacturer and anyone other than "a purchaser or end user.”
Penunuri v. Sundance, 2013 UT 22 (Utah 2013).
· cites it 3× “, UTAH CODE § 78B-6-707 (“Any clause in a sales contract or collateral document that requires a purchaser or end user of a product to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a manufacturer of a product is contrary to public policy and void and unenforceable if a defect in the design…”
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 (Utah 2017).
“UTAH CODE § 78B-6-707. That implies that contractual indemnification clauses are presumptively valid as between a manufacturer and anyone other than “a purchaser or end user.”
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.