Legal Opinion

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Maus

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1973PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

We held for the plaintiff, Hartford, in its action for indemnity. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Maus, 266 Or 203, 511 P2d 839, decided July 6, 1973. Plaintiff has petitioned to be reimbursed for the attorney fees incurred on appeal.

The defendants resist contending that “attorney fees recoverable are limited to the defense of the claim indemnified against, and does not extend to services rendered in establishing the right of indemnity.” That may be the correct rule when the indemnitee is seeking reimbursement for attorney fees on an implied contract of indemnity. That question is not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. General Electric Company v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1960
  2. Howard P. Foley Co. v. Employers-Commercial UnionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1971
  3. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. MausOregon Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Burr v. LichtenheimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API