Contract Drafting Class 20
- Thurs. Mar. 29
University of Houston Law Center
- D. C. Toedt III
Thurs. Mar. 29 University of Houston Law Center D. C. Toedt III - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Contract Drafting Class 20 Thurs. Mar. 29 University of Houston Law Center D. C. Toedt III Z&B Chapter 5D Legal opinions Legal opinions takeaways: 1. Third parties might rely on it sue the lawyer if things go wrong 2. Limitations
University of Houston Law Center
lawyer if things go wrong
Who is entitled to rely on it What assumptions were made What if any files or docs were reviewed What if any other investigation was made
(or “without investigation”)
Whose knowledge – the janitor’s?
Try not to opine about things that:
… are outside the scope of lawyers’
professional competence
… are outside your competence … the client could certify … the other side could readily verify
(e.g., contents of docs, SEC filings, etc.)
Read the ABA guidelines at http://goo.gl/tI02A
(but don’t take them as gospel)
Don’t be afraid to push back
Golden Rule – “would you give an opinion like that?”
Try to attach the form of opinion as K exhibit
Reimburse for demonstrated harm
suffered
Broadly defined – see Common Draft
§ 101.16
Not the same as “hold harmless”
(H/H is essentially an advance release)
General – any harm suffered Narrower – third-party claims only
Monetary awards Defense costs
(if indemnitor doesn’t provide a defense)
Spell out separately California law: Implied with indemnity
QUESTION: Which is better for indemnitor:
provide a defense (you hire and pay for
the defense counsel), or
reimburse the other side for its legal fees?
(Common Draft §§ 802.06 et seq.)
Timely notification of claim Indemnitor controls the defense No (non-factual) admissions No waiver of defenses Settlement restrictions Protected person pays for own
monitoring counsel
Texas will enforce obligation to indemnify
for own negligence
BUT, the obligation must be:
Expressly stated “Conspicuous”
CAUTION: Indemnifying party is now an
insurance carrier for the protected party
(CD § 802.25)
Try to negotiate limits Other side will often push back Response: “We’re selling [X], not
insurance – we can buy a policy for you and bill you for the cost plus a markup.”
Check with client’s insurance carrier to be sure insurance policy doesn’t exclude contractual indemnities
See blog postings listed at http://goo.gl/VRujv
(Common Draft § 407)
Commercial general liability (“CGL”) –
bodily injury, property damage liability, contractual liability for indemnity
Errors & omissions (“E&O”) a.k.a.
professional liability
Auto Employer liability
(Common Draft § 407.02)
Claims made Occurrence “Tail” policies
(Common Draft § 407.03)
Combined single occurrence Check w/ business people,
insurance agent
See http://goo.gl/OykOs for more details Whose insurance is “primary”? Subrogation waiver
"A waiver of subrogation clause is placed in the … contract to minimize lawsuits and claims among the parties. The result is that the risk of loss is agreed among the parties to lie with the insurers, and the cost of the insurance coverage is contractually allocated among the parties as they may
parties, is determined to stop there, without allowing the insurer to seek redress from the party ‘at fault.’" Kenneth A. Slavens, What is Subrogation . . . and Why Is My Contract Waiving It? (2000; accessed Aug. 22, 2007) (emphasis added); see also the Wikipedia article on Subrogation.
See http://goo.gl/ZnofQ for more details Copy of vendor’s own certificate Customer’s certificate direct from carrier Endorsement – notice of changes Hang on to those certificates!
Abacus Fed. Svgs. Bk. v.
ADT Security Serv., Inc., summarized in this blog posting
Diebold’s magic formula:
Limitation of liability Customer must buy insurance Customer waives subrogation
Party A must buy insurance Party B is an “additional named insured” Party A waives subrogation Waiver is binding on insurance carrier So even if Party B is at fault, insurance
carrier can’t sue Party B to recoup payout
(See this blog posting for cites)
Other side agrees not to sue your client’s employees, etc. Handy for multi- jurisdictional matters