Indemnity: Clause In Bekins Moving Contract Was True Indemnity Clause, Not Giving Rise To 1717 Fee Recovery

 

Clause Only Concerned Property Ownership, Not Litigation Between Parties.

     Plaintiff won substantial damages from Bekins in a dispute involving property loss resulting from a move from one storage facility to another. Plaintiff then sought recovery of attorney’s fees under a fees clause in the Bekins contract. The lower court said “no,” prompting an appeal by plaintiff.

     The appellate court said “no” also in DeposiTech, Inc. v. Bekins A-1 Movers, Inc., Case No. D061729 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 5, 2013) (unpublished).

     Like the trial court, the reviewing court concluded that the Bekins provision was a true indemnification provision rather than a fees clause. It was only concerned with whether the plaintiff owned the property and provided an indemnification to Bekins in that event; no language in the clause dealt with litigation between the parties. (Carr Bus. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla, 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 (2008).) Fee denial affirmed.

Moving van.  Orth Van & Storage Co. Pasadena, CA.  19 – ?.