Court Opinion

ID: 9674832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:13.124116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.905759
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On appellant’s motion for rehearing, no new argument is presented. However, appellant misconstrues our holding regarding its claim for common law indemnity. To clarify the matter, we did not hold that “the existence of a contractual indemnity provision forcloses the possibility of common law indemnity” as asserted by appellant. We did hold that UMC is not entitled to contractual indemnity because the obligation of the indemnitor (Coonrod) was not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms and also hold that the reason they are not entitled to common law indemnity is because they did not meet either of the criteria which must be present in order for the courts to imply such a contract. UMC was not exposed to liability without any fault on their part nor were they compelled to pay damages on account of the negligence or tortious act of another. See 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 21 (1944).
As to appellant’s contentions against Arthur Brothers, we have considered all of the evidence and we adhere to our original disposition.
The motion for rehearing is OVERRULED.