Opinion ID: 1209932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does AS 45.45.900 Apply Only When the Party Invoking the Particular Clause in Question Is Seeking Indemnity?

Text: The City argues that since a limitation of liability clause and an indemnification clause are synonymous, and therefore void under AS 45.45.900, the statute applies regardless of whether or not indemnity is sought. CH2M Hill contends that AS 45.45.900 does not apply to these proceedings under the principle of DeLaval Turbine, 694 P.2d at 154, since the City is not seeking to recover money that it has paid to a third party for damages. We conclude that AS 45.45.900 applies to a clause that is questioned under this statute regardless of whether indemnification has been sought. The statute states that an indemnification clause that limits liability for a promisee's sole negligence is void and unenforceable. Had the legislature stated only that such a clause is unenforceable, then the statute would apply only when a party attempted to use the clause, as opposed to interpreting it. Since the statute also states that such a clause is void, we find the statute applicable when presented in a hypothetical context such as this petition. Accordingly, that portion of the Clause that addresses the responsibility for damages of third parties is void.
The superior court's holding that AS 45.45.900 does not apply to the Clause is REVERSED.