By analyzing the broad language of the indemnification agreement with respect to our participation in Baglino, we legally conclude that Goettl is required to keep WSI harmless, even if WSI was an active negligence party. The WSI-Goettl indemnification agreement does not address WSI`s conduct, asset or liability. Instead, the deal focuses exclusively on Goettl`s action. The agreement clearly and unambiguously obliges Goettl to keep WSI harmless from any injury or damage caused in whole or in part by Goettl. The Cunninghams` accusations in the infringement action led to their complaint being brought under the compensation agreement. We therefore agree with the Court of Procedure that the WSI-Goettl Lease Waiver clause creates an obligation for Goettl to exempt WSI. Goettl asked the court to set aside the judgment. The Cunninghams, in the context of the monitoring procedure, claim that the amount of the fees granted to them is insufficient. However, the available questions are whether the Court erred in its analysis of the Cunningham-WSI agreement as damron`s agreement and whether it erred in rendering Cunninghams` summary judgment on the issue of compensation. 10 The trial court accepted the Cunninghams, found that the minutes contained no evidence of fraud, and granted the Cunninghams` application for summary judgment. Referring to the series of cases, the Court of Justice decided: That, because Goettl did not provide evidence of fraud or collusion on the amount of damages and WSI Goettl challenged its defence of Cunningham`s complaint to Goettl and thus announced Goettl`s plea, the indemnification clause of the lease obliged Goettl to indemnify WSI to the tune of the $250,000 judgment.
3 By relying on the opt-out clause in its lease agreement with Goettl1, WSI proposed that Goettl defend the tortious act. Goettl refused to defend or participate in WSI`s defense, even after WSI informed Goettl of upcoming deal negotiations with the Cunninghams. After two years of legal battle and on the eve of the trial, WSI and the Cunninghams agreed to settle the misdemeanor complaint. 3. If there was an agreement to obtain an agreement and satisfaction, did the defendant legally violate the agreement? In a damron agreement, a policyholder can only agree with a policyholder if the insurer has first breached a contractual obligation to the policyholder. 105 Ariz. 151, 460 p.2d 997; See Arizona Property and Casualty Ins. Guar.
Fund v. Helme, 153 Ariz. 129, 735 p.2d 451 (1987); State Farm Mutual Auto. In what makes me feel good. Co. v. Paynter, 122 Ariz. 198, 200-01, 593 p.2d 948, 950-51 (App.1979). On the other hand, when an insurer fulfils its contractual obligation to defend the policyholder against a right that may be covered by the policy, the policyholder must cooperate and assist the insurer in its defence. . .