Cases: Indemnity

Indemnity/Judicial Estoppel: Defense Fee Denial Request Affirmed … Defense Based Erroneous Recovery On A True Indemnity Clause, Not A True Fees Clause

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity

  Style and Substance of Indemnity Provision Supported the Denial Result, With Judicial Estoppel Argument Based on International Billing Services Not Prevailing.      Ni v. Yuan, Case No. B2347744 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 31, 2012) (unpublished) is yet another decision where defendants appealed a fee denial order, only to be affirmed because the defense […]

Indemnity/Section 1717: Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant Awarded $134,469.36 On Contract Claim, But Properly Not Allowed Fee Recovery On Fraud Claim

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Fourth District, Division 1 Questions Validity of Hilltop Decision.      A prevailing alter ego defendant was awarded $134,469.36 out of a requested $353,047.50 in attorney’s fees based on Civil Code section 1717 and the Reynolds case [one of our Leading Cases], but was denied recovery of fees for successfully defending on a fraud claim

Indemnity/Judicial Estoppel: $450,000 Plus Attorney’s Fees Award Gets Reversed When Appellate Court Determines Only A True Indemnification Clause Involved

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity

  Judicial Estoppel Doctrine Also Found Inapt for Awarding Fees to Winning Appellate Parties, Noting International Billing Rationale Not Embraced by California Supreme Court.      Plaintiffs (lenders) must have been feeling pretty good after garnering a $450,000 plus attorney’s fees award from defendants (borrowers) based upon a simple indemnification provision which was found to have

Choice of Law/Indemnity/Section 1717: Losing Indemnitee Bears Full Requested Attorney’s Fees Against It, As Non-Prevailing Party, Of $161,669.87 For Being Defeated In Indemnity Action

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Indemnitee Drafted Pennsylvania Choice of Law Clause, Putative Indemnitor Conceded Fees Clause In Indemnity Agreement Was Reciprocal, And Apportionment Not Required Because Liability And Indemnity Issues Inextricably Intertwined.      You knew where this one was going when it opened “Appellant . . . was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced

Fees Clause Interpretation/Indemnity: Toro Enterprises Decision Now Published

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

       In our April 11, 2011 post, we discussed Toro Enterprises, Inc. v. Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc., a Second District, Division 6 unpublished decision in which a subcontractor recovered attorney’s fees against a general contractor under a broadly-worded fee clauses relating to “dispute resolution.” We can now report that this decision was certified for

Indemnity: Public Employee Who Incurred Legal Fees/Costs During Course Of Law Enforcement Investigations Not Leading To Any Court Proceedings/Actions Not Entitled To Reimbursement Under Government Code Sections 995/996.4 Or Labor Code Section 2802

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Lack of Court or Judicial Proceedings Was Dispositive.      Ms. Thornton, near the end of her term as a Board member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, was appointed as an ALJ for the Board, a hire that was subsequently investigated by the State Auditor and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office for potential Government

Indemnity/Substantiation Of Fees: Former Employees Prevailing In Actions Arising Out Of Their Agency Relationship Entitled To Substantial Fee Recoveries Under Indemnity Statute

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Corporations Code Section 317(d) Did Sustain Large Fee Awards Against Non-prevailing Former Employer.      Parcell Steel Co., Inc. v. Sauer, Case No. G043444 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where various defendants (former employees) were awarded substantial attorney’s fees against plaintiff former employer when employer lost confidential use of

Indemnity/Section 1717: Indemnity Fee Award Affirmed; Section 1717 Award Reversed After Voluntarily Dismissal of Some Claims

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Longstanding Case May Be Finally Resolved Except for Appeal Costs for Two Parties.      In our February 20, 2009 post, we looked at a complicated, multi-party construction dispute that produced some interesting fee rulings. That case was Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Roofing Corp. Because the 2009 appellate opinion remanded for reconsideration of certain

Scroll to Top