Legal Opinion
McDowell v. AUSTIN COMPANY
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 12, 1985No. 51545-0PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtUtter, J.
The Austin Company, a general contractor, seeks indemnity from Canron Corporation, a subcontractor, for a settlement payment to Canron's injured employee. The trial court dismissed Austin's claim. The court concluded that the terms of the indemnity clause executed by Austin, the indemnitee, and Canron, the indemnitor, do not clearly obligate Canron to indemnify Austin against liabilities caused by the concurrent negligence of the parties. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. That court ruled that the language of the indemnity clause includes circumstances of concurrent negligence. We…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Jones v. Strom Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1974
- Griffiths v. Henry Broderick, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1947
- Joe Adams & Son v. McCann Construction CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1971
- MacDonald & Kruse, Inc. v. San Jose Steel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1972
- Redford v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1980
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Scott Galvanizing, Inc. v. Northwest EnviroServices, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- International Marine Underwriters v. ABCD Marine, LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel Erectors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1996
- Riggins v. Bechtel Power Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup America, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.