Thousands of verified Experts are ready to answer your specific questions 24/7.
Satisfaction is guaranteed and you pay your Expert only if you are satisfied.
Just type your detailed question and click "Get an Answer."
In minutes you'll get a response from an Expert. You can always ask follow-up questions.
Happy with your answer? Just click "Accept" to pay your Expert.
We have two contracts being compared. Neither will allow for indemnity to be struck. However, one contract states there is mutual indemnity and the other states we just must indemnify. Is mutual indemnity a firewall or understanding that neither party agrees to defend the other? What is mutual indemnity and is it better than not having "mutual" in the term?
Optional Information: Naperville, Illinois
Mutual indemnity that calls upon each party to indemnify the other, but only for each party's negligent acts. This is better because under a regular indemnity clause risk is assumed for any problems that occur. Under the mutual indemnity clause, you are only liable for problems that occur because of your own negligence. Be wary, if the clause does not state how much negligence, then even if you are found 1% negligent you could possibly be liable for indemnifying for the entire amount. Generally, you can specify that you agree to mutually indemnify up to the amount of any negligence by each of the parties, meaning that if you are 40% negligent and the other party is 60% negligent, then that is the amount each of you must pay of the total award.If you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT button. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
Reply to PaulMJD's Post: We have an atty who reviewed the contract an his reply to my question about "mutual indemnity vs. regular indemnity was this. the mutual is useless. you can't make them indemnify us for what we have to indemnify them for.
It is not necessarily useless, what it does is makes them indemnify you for whatever is caused by their negligence and you would have to indemnify them for whatever is caused by your negligence. A regular indemnity clause means you would have to indemnify them for anything and everything regardless of whether or not they were negligent. That is the difference.
Reply to PaulMJD's Post: I think, from your excellent explanation, in the actual term reprinted below, we're indemnifying them for anything we sue them about and they'll indemnify us only for their negligence; is that right? 8. The parties to this contract agreement do hereby mutually agree to release, indemnify and hold harmless each other, from and against all liability for bodily injury (including death), damage to property, personal injury, claims, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including any attorney’s fees), and lawsuits arising from, or alleged to arise from, rental and use of ice surface and/or use of the arena’s facilities, which are the subject of this agreement. For purposes of this agreement lessee shall release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Rocket Ice Arena from any and all claims of any of its officers, representatives, members, players, spectators, guests, and visitors. Each party shall agree to accept the full responsibility for their own negligence and actions.
No, you are not indemnifying them for what you sue them over. You would be indemnifying them in case they were sued by a third party and it was not their negligence that caused them to be sued (which is usually never the case). If you sued them, you do not have to indemnify them from that action. If someone sued you because of their negligence they would have to indemnify you. If someone sues them because of your negligence, you would have to indemnify them.
Attorney
JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law