Fisk Electric Co. v. Constructors & Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the “expressed negligence requirement is ... a rule of contract interpretation” and amounts to a question of law
• recognizing that the \expressed negligence requirement is ... a rule of contract interpretation\ and amounts to a question of law
• stating that indemnity provisions which do not clearly provide for indemnification for the indemnitee’s own negligence do not, as a matter of law, indemnify the indemnitee for its own negligence
• determining as a matter of law that indemnity was not owed because indemnity provision failed to meet requirements of express-negligence doctrine
• applying the “express negligence doctrine,” whereby a party seeking indemnity from consequences of its own negligence must clearly express that intent in language that contains specific terms within the four corners of the contract
• “The express negligence requirement is not an affirmative defense but a rule of contract interpretation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).