Baldwin Builders v. Coast Plastering Corp.

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 1339·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 75·2005 Daily Journal DAR 833·24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 624
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2005D043422California3,224 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

The issue in this case is whether a unilateral attorney fee clause included in an indemnity agreement between a general contractor and a subcontractor is subject to the reciprocity principles set forth in Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a) (section 1717(a)). We conclude that where, as here, the contractual provision is not included as an item of loss or expense under the indemnity agreement, but instead separately provides for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in enforcing the indemnity agreement, section 1717 applies and authorizes a prevailing indemnitor/subcontractor to recover attorney fees so incurred. We also hold that where the indemnitor/subcontractor is required to prove its lack of fault in defending against a claim under the indemnity, it is entitled to recover the fees incurred therefor.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Baldwin Builders (Baldwin) was the developer of Paloma, a seven-subdivision, 239-unit community in San Marcos. Coast Plastering Corporation (Coast) and T&M Framing, Inc. (T&M) entered into subcontracts with Baldwin to perform certain construction work in the Tierra subdivision of the Paloma development. Although the subcontracts…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.