Court Opinion

ID: 9681243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:46:31.458989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.859261
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
concurring.
The concurring opinion issued in this case on August 31, 1989 is ordered withdrawn, and the following concurring opinion is hereby substituted.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, but I disagree with a por*794tion of the opinion. I agree that the trial court properly awarded Dresser judgment against CIC for attorneys’ fees because the jury did not find Dresser negligent. This conclusion is in accord with the many cases cited by the majority that reason that, when an indemnitee has not been found negligent and sues for indemnity for its costs of defense, it is irrelevant that a contract might not validly indemnify the indemnitee for its own negligence under the express negligence test — the validity of the indemnity agreement never comes into play.
It is not necessary, under the facts of this case, to go any further. I do not join in that part of the majority’s opinion that states that even if the jury had found Dresser negligent, CIC would still be liable to pay Dresser’s attorneys’ fees and other defense costs.