Talk:Indemnity

Why is the Unification Church here?

Why is there a witnessing track for the Unification Church here of all places? It seems totally inappropriate. Especially if someone's child is just looking for the word indemnity. Their parents don't want them to be witnessed to on Wikipedia. Marknw 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording and removed the link. I think that section should be here but it should just be informative. S Sepp 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't more of the religious denominations be included? Marknw 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If they use the word 'indemnity' as well, then sure. S Sepp 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The short section has been moved to Unification Church article as it does clearly not belong here. If anybody writes a longer article (or wishes to begin with a stub) on non-legal indemnification, then please move the contents of this article to Indemnity (law) and place a disambiguation page here, placing their article in Indemnity (Unification Church) or equivelent. Bamkin 22:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Holocaust

the Jewish Holocaust was caused by indemnity for their responsibility for the death of Jesus.

I'm not sure the above sentence is precisely correct. Caused by makes it sound like Hitler had nothing to do with it. And the whole statement insinuates that the Holocaust wasn't a bad thing.

According to the Unification Church, God sent an emissary (the late Dr. Sang Hun Lee) to speak with Hitler in the spirit world. But he couldn't reach him, because his situation in hell was so wretched as to be inaccessible to Dr. Lee.

I need to think long and hard about how to explain the UC doctrine of indemnity. --Uncle Ed 18:02 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

The next sentence mentions Hitler. Moon's statement below certainly seems to imply that the Holocaust, if not okay, was the Jews' fault. Is there another reasonable interpretation?

Jewish people, you have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews. That is why. God could not prevent Satan from doing that because Israel killed the True Parents. Even now, you have to determine that you will repent and follow and become one with Christianity through Rev. Moon.

--The Cunctator

Perhaps it would be better to say:

• Jews interpret this and other similar passages as meaning that the Holocaust was the Jews' fault
• Unificationists hold to a different interpretation, i.e., that the Holocaust was the fault of Hitler and of Christians who did nothing and let it happen

I will probably have to contact Andrew Wilson, professor of Old Testament Studies at UTS for a definitive answer. For now, I will just say that it all hinges on the meaning of terms such as fault, blame, responsibility and of course the UC's special term indemnity.

Of course, if you'd like to help me puzzle it out before I contact the professor, you might study Rev. Moon's "Statement on Jews and Israel", available on-line here. --Uncle Ed 21:56 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I didn't wait -- I went ahead and made changes here as well as to Unification Church and anti-Semitism. Please review and comment, and rememeber, I want to work with you, not against you. I can't tell whether I'm being neutral enough for NPOV, because I'm too "involved". So I rely on your judgment at least as much as on my own. --Uncle Ed 00:10 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from main page

The following requires further review for its invective against Jews and for its derogatory nature:

"According to unofficial notes by an audience member, Reverend Moon said:

"Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews." [1]

This would seem to imply that the Holocaust (murder of six million Jews by the Nazis) served as indemnity for their responsibility for the death of Jesus (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism)"

Further opinions... IZAK 08:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Indemnification

This article and Indemnification have nearly identical content, and, for that matter, the same problems. I'm indifferent as to which should remain, but there definitely should not be two articles. Mmmbeer 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

sounds good --Curzon 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++

Indemnity in UK Commercial Law

This is all very interesting but does not help me with the UK legal meaning of "Indemnity", including the "Title Indemnity Insurance" that UK Solicitors and Mortgage Lenders are now persuading buyers and or sellers of property to purchase, as condition of sale, to make up for the absence of Planning Permission or Building Regulations Certificates from the Deeds of the property.

OED has four distict meanings for "Indemnity", none of which are theological.

Vernon White 13:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vernon My solicitor also suggested this to me but I am not keen of Indemnity Insurance because I may find it difficult to sell when the market is not as hot as it is now. May I have your view on this?

Thanks

ALL insurance is an example of indemnity in the legal definition. The insurance company pays for somebody else's mistake - e.g. Timmy down the road kicks a football and smashes my car windscreen, Timmy is at fault, if the AA pays for my broken windscreen, the AA has indemnified Timmy. Bamkin 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Timmy down the road kicks a football and smashes my car windscreen, Timmy is at fault, if the AA pays for my broken windscreen, the AA has indemnified Timmy."

Not exactly. If the AA pay for the damage to your broken car windscreen they have indemnified you. You are the one who has sustained loss through the breaking of your windscreen and you are the one who has a contract with the AA which states that they will indemnify you in respect of any such loss or damage howsoever caused (no doubt subject to some specific exemptions). Timmy, at this stage, has sustained no loss for breaking your car windscreen and so there is nothing for him to be indemnified in respect of.

Further, the statement gives the somewhat misleading impression that insurers relieve wrong-doers from liability. In a case such as this the insurer will, in exchange for paying to make good your loss, usually take an assignation of the legal claim which you have against Timmy for the damage caused. They will then sue Timmy and thereby recover their outlay. To this extent motor insurance is not a pure example of indemnification since it can equally be analysed as an exchange contract (ie. the insurer gives you money, in exchange for a legal claim - essentially a debt - of, presumably, equal value). This is different from the premiums which policy-holders pay to insurers because in that case there is no necessary correlation between the level of payments made by each party (the disparity between the two is afterall how insurers seek to make their profits). Of course if Timmy has insufficient assets to satisfy the judgment against him, then the situation is one of pure indemnity since the insurer has incurred an unrecoverable cost in paying out on the policy.

Finally, the statement that "ALL insurance is an example of indemnity in the legal definition" is not entirely accurate. Certainly in the financial services industry there is a tendency to refer to indemnity insurance and life assurance as two distinct forms of insurance (the difference between insurance and assurance is generally not thought significant and the two are frequently used interchangably, although "assurance" tends to be favoured in the context of life policies). The difference is that indemnity insurance pays out only if specified loss causing events occur; that is to say the policy holder sustains loss of a type which they had the foresight to contract for indemnification against. As stated above, there is no connection between the number of premiums paid and the insurers obligation to indemnify. By contrast, life assurance is often used as an investment vehicle in which the amount paid in, corresponds directly to the amount paid out. Nor is pay out necessarily tied to financial loss, many policies pay out at the end of their term (if the policy holder is still alive) and are therefore not indemnifying the policy holder for anything. --Antisthenes 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it?

The first paragraph of the article:

"Indemnity is a legal exemption from the penalties or liabilities incurred by any course of action. For example, after wars, the losers have sometimes been required to pay indemnities. An insurance payout is often called an indemnity, or it can be insurance to avoid paying expenses in case of a lawsuit."

This seems like a contradiction to me. The first sentence says that indemnity is an exemption to pay for damages. The second sentence says that it is a requirement to pay. Steve Dufour 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can indemnity relating to insurence by placed within a single section please? I wish to write about two other legal definitions of indemnity but find it difficult to determine where to place these (they clearly belong in this article but it is overrun with insurence related information). I am to write about indemnity clauses under contract law, and claims for indemnity within an action for resititutio in integrum. Bamkin 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Source citation

I agree that the more technical articles should cite sources, but I'm unsure what would be an appropriate source for the general legal propositions. If this is meant only to apply to the tangential topics towards the bottom (war, church discussion) then it should be immediately before those sections.LH 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation requested was over-the-top as that is clearly the main principle of the 14th ammendment. I may add a link to the text of the ammendment on USgov website. The exact ammounts of indemnity probably should be varified though. Bamkin 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation for the Extended Period of Business Interruption Insurance is not a peer reviewed nor independant publication. It might be correct, but it is written by an employee of the company that publishes it; as a form of info-advertising. I propose to delete this citation. Leonkiwi (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery and War?

I intend to remove the sections relating to "indemnity" for slavery and war, but wish to canvass opinion first.

My difficulty with these sections is primarily that even if it is accurate to talk about them as instances of indemnification, they are merely that. Mentioning them seems to me no more relevant than listing every other form of indemnity (starting with a list of every known type of insurance policy and contractual obligation to meet losses). Unless someone has verifiable evidence that there is some particular reason that these are instances of indemnity different and distinct from every other type of indemnity justifying their presence, I think they should be removed as they only serve to muddy the waters.

I also have more specific difficulties with both of them. In the case of the slavery section there is repeated reference to it being simply a "belief" of the time that slaveowners suffered loss in consequence of the emancipation of their slaves. Whilst I do not wish to suggest slavery to be anything less than utterly abhorrent, this was not a mere belief but an actual fact. Slaveowners did suffer loss due to emancipation. Distasteful though it may seem to us now, slaves were property; merchantable commodities. Not only could they be sold for money (or exchanged for other goods) they were tools which generated income. If a law were passed tomorrow banning the ownership of tractors there could be no question that current tractor owners would suffer a loss. That is not a mere belief, it is a commercial reality.

In relation to payments for damages caused during war the term more usually employed is "reparations." I have never seen the word indemnity used in this context anywhere else and would be grateful if someone would point me to a verifiable source in which it is so used. --Antisthenes 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the war section should be integrated into reparations, and then a reference to it placed here. I don't, however, feel particularly strongly either way.LH 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not even clear that this is a form of "indemnity" as opposed to compensation. I will delete the section now. Anyone who feels strongly otherwise can restore, and initiate a discussion here. Lawdroid (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold Harmless?

What's the connection? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The relationship between "indemnify" and "hold harmless" really isn't clear, and most lawyers use "indemnify and hold harmless" without actually understanding what they are saying. But "hold harmless" probably just means that one party will ensure that another party will not suffer any detriment in respect of whatever is being referred to - in other words, it is synonymous with "indemnify", and adds nothing. Westmorlandia (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

From here: http://liblicense.crl.edu/ListArchives/9907/msg00032.html, "The term hold harmless should not in itself impose an obligation to indemnify. Nor it is likely that the use of the phrase "hold harmless" by itself would impose any additional liability on a party or cause one party to automatically be liable for the acts of another." Based on that, it would seem slightly unfortunate for "hold harmless" to redirect here without explanation. However, IANAL and don't feel qualified to write any sort of explanation!

The construction of standard phrases varies from legal system to legal system. Fundamentally, this page needs bulking up with basic concepts of indemnity. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get it (even from me), because indemnification is a topic that a) lawyers are pretty comfortable with b) rarely need to analyse in great detail c) have textbooks that explore it entirely adequately. Lawdroid (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, it sounds very strange that "indemnity" and "hold harmless" would mean the same - I'd think that "indemnity" means someone does have an obligation in x case, and "hold harmless" means this someone has no obligation in this case. Or is it my limited understanding of English? If it's just a standard phrase, I find this wording very confusing. Niquesse90 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When "Ora indemnifies and holds harmless Lee", the sentence means Ora indemnifies Lee, and Ora holds Lee harmless. Both parts mean Ora pays the costs of Lee. If Ora were held harmless, she would have no costs, as you say, but Lee is being held harmless, so she has no costs (since Ora pays them). Numbersinstitute (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheScarletL made an edit, on 12 Sept, 2018, and gave as the reason: "There is at least one state where the duty to hold harmless has been distinguished from a duty to indemnify. These are complicated, and remarkably confusing, topics for those without legal training. If "hold harmless" continues to re-direct to this page, this or a similar qualification should be maintained." Can someone provide a cite to the case(s) which show this distinction? I remember a case, but have no citation. I fixed the source for liblicense above, but it does not cite any cases. Numbersinstitute (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Slave indemdity and war indemnity

I restored the information about indemnity for slave owners and war indemnity because it was simply deleted. People worked on this information and it is interesting. If somebody wants this article to be more narrow, please move the unwanted contents to other articles, which conform better. Ufim (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Section title is now "Freeing of slaves and indentured servants", yet describes slaves and serfs. Are there any examples with indentured servants? Numbersinstitute (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of section on US Contracts in 2016

CoolCaesar deleted the section on US Contracts in this Indemnity article, on 23 Feb 2016, without giving any replacement. The topic is notable since indemnity clauses are pervasive in US contracts, and seem to have a meaning there distinguishable from the other usages in the article, so the deletion needs discussion here. The US Contracts section had 4 parts when it was deleted:

• Distinction between indemnity in negotiated contracts and in adhesion contracts
• Standard legal issues considered in negotiating indemnity clauses (cost control, moral hazard, etc.), sourced to legal experts on the subject and a respected legal publication
• A state supreme court case enforcing an indemnity clause in a contract
• Indemnity clauses used in various industries

CoolCaesar gave 3 reasons without specifics, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, which have the following meanings:

• WP:NOR, No original research. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." But the various sections (especially the few conclusions) were derived from and attributed to reliable sources.
• WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view. "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." But a variety of views were presented, and if CoolCaesar knows of other views which are missing, the fix is to add them, not delete everything.
• WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a textbook. "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." But there were no questions nor problem solutions in the material deleted.

Others can use the revision history to compare the article before and after the 23 Feb 2016 deletion, and add their thoughts here. I'd say the section was brief and could be expanded, but it was a reasonable start on the subject. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I recreated the section after a week with no one posting any further discussion. Numbersinstitute (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. There are many things still fatally wrong with the text as revised. I don't have time to address all the issues right now. First, the overall impression is that you are objecting to nonnegotiated unlimited indemnity in general. Too bad. Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, any lawyer will tell you that such contracts are sound public policy and fundamental to the operation of a modern industrial economy. Second, your assertion that you are not publishing original research is belied by your lack of cited sources for this sentence: "When a contract is not negotiable (Adhesion contract), the wording often lets the indemnitee decide what to spend on legal costs and bill the indemnitor." Listing a series of unduly long examples in support of an entirely unsupported conclusion (which itself is a personal opinion) is synthesis, that is, the very definition of original research under WP:NOR. That is, each of those contracts could be cited merely to support an assertion that X contract says Y, but when you put them all together to imply that based on examples XY1, XY2, XY3, therefore Z is true, then that's improper synthesis. And it's not even correct. The exact same problem can and does arise with negotiated contracts. Have you ever actually drafted or litigated these things? (I've actually done both.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)