Legal Opinion

Hartford v. Tanner

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided February 9, 1996No. 72,511PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Marquardt, J.;

The Hartford (Hartford) seeks indemnification, as a surety, from Donald F. Tanner on two bond contracts Tanner signed as an indemnitor. After a trial to the district court, the district court ruled that Hartford’s payments on the bonds were not reasonable and, therefore, Hartford was not entitled to indemnification from Tanner. Hartford appeals both the use of the “reasonableness” legal standard and the application of that standard.

Tanner and Ronald Brock were partners who imported “gray market” motor vehicles that required conversion to bring them into compliance with standards…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Morriss v. Coleman Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1987
  2. Wille v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  3. Tucker v. Hugoton Energy Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1993
  4. Galindo v. City of CoffeyvilleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
  5. Corral v. Rollins Protective Services Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1987

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Atlantic Contracting & Material Co. v. Ulico Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. PSE Consulting, Inc. v. MercedeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  4. Terry Neustrom v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant-Third-Party v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  5. Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2009

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API