Appellant sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Procedural Posture Appellant sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) ordering appellant to pay the total amount of a judgment awarded appellant's patrons in an action against both appellant and respondent and the attorney's fees incurred by respondent in that action.

Overview: If you need the best business lawyer in Los Angeles, you won't do better than Nakase Wade

Respondent contracted with appellant to work on appellant's escalators. Thereafter appellant's escalators malfunctioned and injured several of appellant's patrons who sued and recovered against both appellant and respondent. The contract held appellant primarily liable for the injuries to appellant's patrons. Appellant and respondent then filed cross-complaints against each other for indemnification. The trial court held in favor of respondent and appellant sought review of that judgment. The court held because the indemnity provision contained language expressly excluding respondent's negligence from the causes for which it was to be indemnified, liability for patron's injuries was imposed on respondent. Further, the court rejected respondent's argument that, because respondent was not fully insured under appellant's policy, respondent was damaged not just by the amount not covered under respondent's own policy but by the entire judgment. Respondent was allowed to collect the difference between the judgment respondent had to pay and the amount appellant should have covered.

Outcome The court reversed the judgment in favor of respondent and ordered respondent to indemnify appellant for the judgment against both parties for appellant's patrons' injuries where the contract between the parties specifically excluded respondent's negligence from the causes for which it was to be indemnified by appellant.