Legal Opinion

Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance v. Arlyn Davis Construction LLC

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 20, 2001No. 00-35657; D.C. No. CV-00-00031-REJPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Gross & Son, Inc., A.W. Davis, Frieda Davis and E. Gene Gross (collectively “the defendants”) appeal the district court’s judgment, entered after a bench trial, enforcing an indemnity agreement and awarding attorney fees in favor of Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The district court concluded that Fidelity’s forbearance from taking actions it legally was entitled to take constituted consideration for the indemnity agreement. That conclusion was not erroneous. Fidelity could have notified the City of McMinnville…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Title & Trust Co. v. NelsonOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Cowles Publishing Co. v. McMannWashington Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Reid-Strutt, Inc. v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Tanco, Inc. v. Houston General Insurance CompanyColorado Court of Appeals · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API