Legal Opinion

United States Elevator Corp. v. Pacific Investment Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 17, 1994No. B070891PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (C. S.), J.

This action upon an indemnity contract was tried by the court upon agreed facts. The court found that appellant United States Elevator Corporation (Elevator) is not entitled to indemnity from respondent Pacific Investment Company (Pacific) for Elevator’s costs of defending a third party lawsuit. We reverse.

Background

Pacific owned a building in Pacific Palisades. Pacific contracted with Elevator to service Pacific’s elevator for $75 a month. The service contract had the following indemnity clause, which was drafted by Elevator: “[Pacific] will indemnify [Elevator]…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gribaldo, Jacobs, Jones & Associates v. Agrippina Versicherunges A. G.California Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Davis v. Air Technical Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1978
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Crosetti Bros.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  4. People v. PatrickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Westamerica Bank v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v. Ralph M. Parsons Service Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome EstatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. City of Watsonville v. CorriganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API