Amoco Production Co. v. W.C. Church Welding

5 Citing cases

  1. Kuhn v. State

    692 P.2d 261 (Alaska 1984)   Cited 4 times
    In Kuhn, we applied the public duty exception to void the indemnity agreement contained in a contract between the state and travellers on the Dalton Highway, a restricted access road.

    552 P.2d at 659-60 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Similar discussions appear in Stephan Sons, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 629 P.2d 71, 77-78 (Alaska 1981); Burgess Construction Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380, 1381-82 (Alaska 1980); and Amoco Production Co. v. W.C. Church Welding Contracting, Inc., 580 P.2d 697, 698 (Alaska 1978). The state argues that the public duty exception applies only when a duty is owed to the "public at large," and not when it is owed to a smaller subgroup of the general public.

  2. Burgess Const. Co. v. State

    614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980)   Cited 22 times
    Holding anticipated costs of obtaining insurance to cover indemnification included as part of bid on project

    The accident clearly falls within that clause, for the accident victims were Burgess' employees engaged in operations in fulfillment of the contract at the time of the accident. Amoco Production Company v. W.C. Church Welding Contracting, Inc., 580 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1978) affords some guidance here. In Amoco, an employee of Church was injured on a drilling platform owned by Amoco. Church and Amoco had a contract requiring Church to indemnify Amoco for injuries to Church's employees.

  3. Stocker v. Shell Oil Company

    105 Wn. 2d 546 (Wash. 1986)   Cited 24 times

    Accord, Elston v. Shell Oil Co., 376 F. Supp. 968 (E.D. La. 1973), (affirmed without opinion, 495 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1974)) (contract supplier of labor held liable under an express contractual indemnity agreement, notwithstanding the borrowed servant status of the negligent laborer supplied to the indemnitee). See also Amoco Prod. Co. v. W.C. Church Welding Contracting, Inc., 580 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1978); Burgess Constr. Co. v. State, 614 P.2d 1380 (Alaska 1980). We are persuaded that public policy considerations mandate enforcement of indemnity agreements, notwithstanding incidents of borrowed servant status.

  4. Kastner v. Toombs

    611 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1980)   Cited 11 times

    010-060 See Arctic Structures, Inc. v. Wedmore, 605 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1979). Among the several indemnity cases which we have decided which may be relevant in dual servant cases are Amoco Production Co. v. W.C. Church Welding Contracting Inc., 580 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1978); Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654 (Alaska 1976); and Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n v. City Elec. Serv. Inc., 518 P.2d 65 (Alaska 1974). There is considerable authority supporting the position which we have taken. For example, Professor Mechem has argued that dual liability is the simplest and most practical solution to the borrowed servant problem.

  5. Hammond v. Bechtel Inc.

    606 P.2d 1269 (Alaska 1980)   Cited 27 times
    Finding issues of material fact where employer had an extensive safety inspection process, and had the authority to direct that defective equipment not be used by the independent contractor

    Note, Risk Administration in the Marketplace: A Reappraisal of the Independent Contractor Rule, 40 U.Chi.L.Rev. 661 (1973). See Amoco Prod. Co. v. W.C. Church Welding, 580 P.2d 697, 698 (Alaska 1978) (per curiam); Manson-Osberg Co. v. State, 552 P.2d 654, 658-60 (Alaska 1976) (upholding express indemnity clauses in construction contracts as not contrary to public policy in absence of unscrupulousness or unequal bargaining power). But see AS 45.47.010 (declaring agreements "affecting any construction contract" which purport to "indemnify the promisee against liability for [certain] damages . . . [caused by] the sole negligence or wilful misconduct of the promisee or the promisee's agents, servants or independent contractors who are directly responsible to the promisee" to be "against public policy and . . . void and unenforceable").