The contention arose from the interpretation of the phrase “brake system” in the California jury’s verdict form, which Nissan claims referred specifically to Continental’s parts, not the entire braking system of the vehicle. Nissan argued that this misinterpretation led to the panel’s conclusion that Continental’s parts didn’t cause the crash, absolving the brake supplier from financial obligations.
Undermining Confidence in Indemnification
Nissan further asserted that the ruling undermines confidence in indemnification agreements like the one it shares with Continental. The agreement stipulates Continental’s indemnification of Nissan for claims related to the supplier’s parts, regardless of whether those parts directly caused damages. The panel’s ruling, Nissan argued, sets a precedent detrimental to such agreements, a contention that the court did not address in its Monday order.
6th Circuit Won’t Rethink $25M Crash Award Against Nissan : No Immediate Comments from Counsel
Despite requests for comment, representatives for both parties remained silent on the matter as of Wednesday.
