Fee Clause Interpretation/Indemnity: Defendants Were Not Prevailing Parties Under Standard Indemnity and Guaranty Provisions

Neither One Conferred A Fee Entitlement Basis To Defendants, Requiring Reversal Of Fee Award.

    In Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890/A141393 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 20, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion not published), defendants were awarded contractual attorney’s fees under an indemnity provision and a guaranty.  That ruling had to be overturned given that they were no longer prevailing parties based upon a reversal by the appellate court.  However, the reviewing court put the kibosh on fee entitlement altogether, determining (1) the indemnity clause was a true third-party indemnity clause which should not be transformed into a fee-shifting clause, and (2) the guaranty could not confer an independent right to fees where the underlying contractual obligation had no fees clause applicable to the “base” contract.

Scroll to Top