Indemnity

===State variations===
Under US law, interpretation of indemnification clauses varies by state.<ref name=bern>Bernstein, Jedidiah M. Esq. (May 2017). http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/tips-for-a-startup-manufacturer-in-31651/</ref> For example, in California indemnification clauses do not cover certain risks unless the risks are listed in the contract, but in New York, the brief clause, "X shall defend and indemnify Y for all claims arising from the Product" makes X responsible for all claims against Y.<ref name=bern /> Indemnity can be extremely costly since X's liability insurance typically does not cover claims against Y, but X still has to cover them.<ref name="boatus" />

In 2017, the [[Utah Supreme Court]] stated, "By statute, a contractual provision requiring a purchaser of a product to indemnify a manufacturer is 'void and unenforceable' in certain circumstances. UTAH CODE § 78B-6-707."<ref>Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4448338/bylsma-v-rcwilleyhumantouch/ opinion]</ref>

In 2012–2014, a New Jersey woman had to pay a lawyer to get out of an indemnity payment for injury at a storage unit. When someone slipped on ice in 2012 while going to a unit, [[Public Storage]] sued in court to make the woman who rented the unit pay for the injury. She tried to ignore the case and so state court ruled that she had to pay. She then retained a lawyer and went to court. In 2014, the [[United States District Court for the District of New Jersey|US District Court]] decided that the specific indemnity clause was unenforceable in New Jersey because it covered Public Storage's own negligence without explicitly saying so, contrary to New Jersey law (other states differ).<ref>''Martinez-Santiago v. Public Storage'' (1:14-cv-00302-JBS-AMD),
[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.298992.24.0.pdf opinion] and
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4311531/martinez-santiago-v-public-storage/ docket]</ref>
A 2013 decision in New Jersey upheld a broad indemnity clause since it was followed by another sentence: "indemnity agreement is intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of New Jersey." The judge said, "It is true that a consumer, unfamiliar with the laws of New Jersey, would not be able to state with certainty how far the waiver extends."<ref>''Sauro v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC'' (1:12-cv-03682), [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.275723.30.0.pdf opinion] and [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4310733/sauro-v-la-fitness-international-llc/ docket]</ref>

In 2010, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] required a flower shop to indemnify its shopping center for a customer who slipped on the icy parking lot, though of no fault of the flower shop, because the tenant was there to visit that shop, and the shop's lease had a broad indemnity clause.<ref name="cohen">{{cite journal | url=https://www.commercialtenantsleaseinsider.com/article/three-strategies-limiting-your-indemnity-obligation | title=Three Strategies for Limiting Your Indemnity Obligation | author=Cohen, Alan M. Esq. | journal=Commercial Tenants Lease Insider | date=April 2014 | access-date=2016-04-22 | archive-date=2017-09-25 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170925083547/https://www.commercialtenantsleaseinsider.com/article/three-strategies-limiting-your-indemnity-obligation | url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 1999, the [[United States District Court for the District of Wyoming]] did not require a customer to indemnify a whitewater rafting company for injury to his wife since the wording may have applied only to him and his children, and clauses cannot be enforced in Wyoming to indemnify a company for its own negligence.<ref name="wyo">{{cite web |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/1999135231fsupp2d132111193 |title=''Madsen v. Wyoming River Trips 31'' F.Supp.2d 1321 (1999) |website=Leagle |access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref>

In 1979, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] ruled that a subcontractor must indemnify the builder for damages that it caused, according to an indemnification clause in their purchase order.<ref>''Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House'' 276 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1979) [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737796/turner-v-alpha-phi-sorority-house opinion]</ref>

In 1966, the [[Supreme Court of California]] ruled that [[The Hertz Corporation]] could not enforce its clause requiring renters to indemnify Hertz's insurer.<ref>''Atlantic Nat. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong'' 65 Cal. 2d 100 (Cal. 1966) [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1232527/atlantic-nat-ins-co-v-armstrong opinion]</ref>