Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that indemnity against one’s own negligence was against public policy without express language
• stating that “[a]n examination of cases from this court reveals its trend toward more strict construction of indemnity contracts”
• holding indemnity agreement that fails to meet express negligence test was unenforceable
• adopting express negligence doctrine to defeat clever attempts by scriveners of indemnity agreements to devise novel ways of drafting provisions which conceal true intent of provisions from indemnitor
• adopting express negligence doctrine to defeat clever attempts by scriveners of indemnity agreements to devise novel ways of drafting provisions which conceal true intent of provisions from indemnitor
• noting that the purpose of the express negligence rule is to address misleading clauses in which “[t]he intent of the scrivener[] is to indemnify the indemnitee for its negligence, yet be just ambiguous enough to conceal that intent from the indemnitor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).