United States Eighth Circuit

In a breach of contract action brought by a company against former shareholder after he refused to pay his share of a settlement agreement, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed where: 1) because an indemnification provision at issue did not create the kind of negative incentives normally associated with attempts to insure against penal sanctions, and because a contract should not be voided absent an unmistakable violation of public policy, it was not possible to conclude that the plaintiff's claim for indemnification was an illegal demand or patently in violation of public policy; and 2) as the settlement agreement between the parties was not part of an illegal scheme, plaintiff's claim was not barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/02/2007
• Published 05/02/2007

Judges

• MURPHY, Circuit Judge., Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John F. Hartmann, argued, Chicago, IL (Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Daniel C. Moore, Chicago, IL, Stephen P. Safranski, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Douglas Ray Peterson, argued, Mankato, MN (James G. Bullard, S. Steven Prince, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellee.