Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Roen Design Associates, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
This case involves an interpretation of an indemnity clause in a contract between the Borough and a design firm for the design of a road, and the effect of such a clause on the indemnitee’s ability to sue under principles of common law indemnity. We hold that the clause does not encompass the claims in question but the indemnitee nonetheless can assert a claim based on principles of common law indemnity.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The Fairbanks North Star Borough (the Borough) contracted with Roen Design (Roen) for the preparation of an environmental assessment,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
- E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Jones v. Strom Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1974
- Kodiak Electric Ass'n v. Delaval Turbine, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
- Addy v. BoltonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Kandik Construction, Inc. & AssociatesAlaska Supreme Court · 1990
- Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Kandik Construction, Inc. & AssociatesAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
- Vankirk v. Green Construction Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
- A.M. Welles, Inc. v. Montana Materials, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2015
- Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.