Opinion ID: 2610709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Agreement of Indemnity

Text: (1) Before proceeding to discuss the interpretation of the subject insurance policy we observe that An indemnity provision of a contract is to be construed under the same rules governing other contracts with a view of determining the actual intent of the parties. ( J.A. Payton v. Kuhn-Murphy, Inc., 253 Cal. App.2d 278, 281 [61 Cal. Rptr. 575]; Buchalter v. Levin, 252 Cal. App.2d 367, 375 [60 Cal. Rptr. 369].) (2) In indemnity contracts, moreover, the provisions of section 2778 [4] prescribing the rules for interpreting indemnity agreements, are as much a part of such instrument as those set out therein, unless a contrary intention appears. ( Thode v. McAmis, 96 Cal. App.2d 833, 836-837 [216 P.2d 548]; Weaver v. Grunbaum, 31 Cal. App.2d 42, 49-50 [87 P.2d 406].) (3) Plaintiffs place strong reliance upon the case of Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal.2d 263 [54 Cal. Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168], and particularly on the principle they extract therefrom that In interpreting an insurance policy we apply the general principle that doubts as to meaning must be resolved against the insurer and that any exception to the performance of the basic underlying obligation must be so stated as clearly to apprise the insured of its effect. (P. 269.) We take cognizance of this rule but also observe that it must be applied in conjunction with the rules applicable to the interpretation of contracts. [5]