Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox & Associates
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
TIMMONS-GOODSON, Justice.
We must determine in the present case whether the parties intended in their subcontract to incorporate by reference the terms of an express indemnification provision found in the primary contract. Because we conclude there exist genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties’ intent to indemnify, summary judgment was inappropriate. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I. Background
On 24 November 1998, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (Board) contracted with the architectural firm of Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. (Schenkel) to design a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lane v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Register v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- Booker v. EverhartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Hagler v. HaglerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- Ellis v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Services, LLCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
- Jones v. Harrelson and Smith Contractors, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- WakeMed v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2015
- Krusch v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2014
- Speedway Motorsports International Ltd. v. Bronwen Energy Trading, Ltd.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.