National Hydro Systems v. M.A. Mortenson Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KEITH, Chief Justice.
Appellant, HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”), seeks review of a court of appeals’ ■decision reversing the trial court’s summary judgment of a claim brought by Respondent, National Hydro Systems (“National Hydro”). The principal issue raised on this appeal is whether the general contractor, M.A. Mor-*692tensón Company (“Mortenson”), is obligated under the general construction contract to indemnify HDR for a claim arising out of HDR’s own negligence, thereby creating a circuity of obligation that defeats National Hydro’s claim as a matter of law. Because we conclude that HDR…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Farmington Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Ford v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Braegelmann v. Horizon Development Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Johnson v. McGough Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- In re RFC & Rescap Liquidating Trust ActionDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2018
- Harleysville Insurance Company v. Physical Distribution ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013
- Katzner v. Kelleher ConstructionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.