You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State of New York v. Panex Industries, Inc.

Citation: 41 F. App'x 516Docket: Docket No. 02-7203

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; August 13, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The judgment of the district court is affirmed regarding the appeal by Dresser-Rand Company, Dresser Industries, Inc., and Turbodyne Electric Power Corporation against Cooper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary, McGraw Edison Company. The appeal concerns the dismissal of their third-party claim for indemnification. The court supports its decision based on the reasoning in Judge Elfvin’s opinion. The appellants argue that the contract's language is suboptimal but fail to present a convincing interpretation that supports their claim. As indemnitees, the appellants carry the burden of demonstrating a "clear and unmistakable intent" to indemnify, as established in Commander Oil Corp. v. Advance Food Serv. Equip. The court finds that the appellants' arguments, based on grammatical issues and ambiguities in the contract, are insufficient to meet this burden.

Legal Issues Addressed

Ambiguities in Contract Language

Application: The court determined that ambiguities and grammatical issues cited by the appellants do not meet the burden required for indemnification.

Reasoning: The court finds that the appellants' arguments, based on grammatical issues and ambiguities in the contract, are insufficient to meet this burden.

Contractual Interpretation

Application: The court found that the appellants did not provide a convincing interpretation of the contract language to support their indemnification claim.

Reasoning: The appellants argue that the contract's language is suboptimal but fail to present a convincing interpretation that supports their claim.

Indemnification Burden of Proof

Application: The appellants, as indemnitees, are required to demonstrate a 'clear and unmistakable intent' to be indemnified, which they failed to do.

Reasoning: As indemnitees, the appellants carry the burden of demonstrating a 'clear and unmistakable intent' to indemnify, as established in Commander Oil Corp. v. Advance Food Serv. Equip.