The scope of an express indemnity obligation comes from the indemnity clause. If the indemnity is for claims “arising out of or in connection with” the indemnitor’s work, there is no need to prove that the indemnitor was negligent. That is the reminder coming from the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The indemnity obligation is normally found within the plain language of the indemnity clause. (And for help parsing that language, see here.) And if the causative activity is not expressed as “negligent” activity, in one form or another, the courts in most states will not imply a negligence standard. If you cause it, you’re responsible, even if the causative action was not negligent.

The Arizona case is Amberwood Development, Inc. v. Swann’s Grading, Inc., 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 207 (Feb. 23, 2017).