California Surveyors Forums

A while back there was a post, I think, that had a court case regarding CHM2Hill. The issue was whether or not CHM2HILL had to pay the defense costs of another entity even though CHM2HILL was found "innocent" of any negligence or other bad stuff. (the court said they did cause the contract they signed said that they would) DUH!

I want to send this synopsis of the court case to an anticipated client who wants me to pay their defense costs "in the event XYZ Construction Company is made a party to any action, proceeding filed or prosecuted against Bruce Hall Land Surveyor...."

I thought I had saved this puppy, but I can't find it in the manilla envelopes in my computer.

Can anyone help?

I thought there was something published in ASCE's Civil Engineering magazine.

This link might be a start?

http://civil-engineering.asce.org/wps/p ... AL1xl7A!!/

Do a Google search of "CH2M HILL Indemnify" and you will be provided with many links.

Previous Discussion Board link can be found at http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... hlight=UDC


There was also a follow up article published in the Cal Surveyor, Issue #171
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/cals ... urv171.pdf

I was looking for. thank you all.

through the posts on the internet regarding this case, but could not find anything regarding what the California Supreme Court ruled, or even if they heard arguments.

Does anyone know if the Court of Appeals decision stood or was it struck?

https://www.beazley.com/.../Insight_CA_ ... _Court.pdf

this is a link stating that the ca supreme court did not review this case. watch out what you defend.

[PDF]
UDC v. CH2M Hill - Beazleyhttps://www.beazley.com/.../Insight_CA_Supreme_Court.pdf

try this one.