Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that unambiguous contract language required three conditions to be met before one party would indemnify another, that one of those conditions was not met, and hence that there was no duty to indemnify
• explaining that “[a] contract is ambiguous if, based upon its language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation”
• noting that “[t]he cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect, to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole .contract”
• “The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for this court to decide.”
• “By entering into an agency agreement containing a clear and unambiguous indemnity clause, [the parties] expressed their intent to have the clause provide [the party’s] exclusive right to indemnity.”
• “The cardinal purpose of construing a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language they used in drafting the whole contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).