Opinion ID: 2760779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aegis’s “Omission”

Text: The indemnity clause covered not only “acts,” but also “omissions.” Brighton alleges an “omission” by Aegis when it failed to provide a defense for Avalon. 2 Avalon’s various expenditures were the indirect result of that omission. 2 The concurrence points out that the contract also obligates Brighton to indemnify Aegis for its losses incurred from “omissions . . . under this Agreement.” Appellant’s App. at 95. The phrase “this Agreement” refers to Brighton’s agreement with Aegis, not Avalon. Thus, Aegis has never argued -9- The term “omission” means that “something . . . has been left out or excluded.” New Oxford Am. Dict. 1223 (3d ed. 2010). Aegis made an “omission” when it declined Brighton’s request to assume the defense of Avalon. 3