Court Opinion

ID: 9778032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:30:32.348454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.217627
License: Public Domain

Pickering, J.,
concurring:
I submit that the express negligence rule has less utility than the rule suggested in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22 cmt. f (2000), which holds that “An indemnitee can recover contractual indemnity for his or her own legally culpable conduct only if the contract is clear on that point,” but recognizes that, “[i]f the contract is otherwise clear, it need not contain specific words, such as ‘negligence’ or ‘fault.’” See George L. Brown Ins. v. Star Ins. Co., 126 Nev. 316, 326-27, 237 P.3d 92, 98-99 (2010) (Pickering, J., concurring). The Restatement’s broader formulation does a better job of capturing the core question: Is the reading of the indemnity clause contended for reasonable in light of the words the parties used and the circum*349stances under which they contracted? Id. at 326, 237 P.3d at 98 (quoting 5 Margaret N. Kniffin, Corbin on Contracts § 24.22, at 240 (1998) (noting “preference for an interpretation that will result in contract terms that are reasonable”)). Although I write separately as to the express negligence rule, I otherwise join the majority’s opinion.