Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Appellant property developer corporations sought review from Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which held that a finding of fraud and misrepresentation barred indemnification from respondent construction corporations. The trial court held that juror misconduct did not require reversal.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are Incorporation Lawyers

Overview

Appellant property developer corporations initiated action against respondent construction corporations for damages that appellants suffered to their condominium complexes. The trial court held that a finding of fraud and misrepresentation barred indemnification, and appellants sought review. The court held that Cal. Civ. Code ยง 1668, which provided that fraudulent contracts were void, did not apply to the express indemnity agreements entered into between appellants and respondents. The court held that such indemnity agreements did not provide indemnity for the fraud or misrepresentation but for damages suffered as a result of appellants’ negligence. The court held that the doctrine of unclean hands did not bar enforcement of the indemnity agreements. The court held that the juror’s outside investigation constituted misconduct. The court held that the finding of misrepresentation and concealed information did not negate the express indemnity agreements. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which held that the finding of misrepresentation and fraud barred appellant property developer corporations from seeking indemnification from respondent construction corporations. The court held that the express indemnity agreements entered into between appellants and respondents did not provide indemnity for fraud or misrepresentation but for damages suffered as a result of negligence.