is reasonable in light of the circumstances. Accordingly, this court finds that the Magistrate Judge committed no clear error in granting Whirlpool’s Motion for determination of good faith settlement. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the court AFFIRMS the August 1, 2003 Magistrate Order Granting Plaintiff Whirlpool Corpo ration’s Motion of Determination of Good Faith Settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . The Magistrate Order does not include page numbers. However, the court will cite to the Magistrate Order as though it were numbered pages one through four. 2 . Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS”) § 663-15.5(d): A determination by 153, 504 P.2d 861 (1972) (concluding that contracts for indemnity are strictly construed). 4 . See, e.g., Hong v. Estate of Graham, 70 P.3d 647 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Hac v. Univ. of Hawaii, 102 Hawaii 92, 73
holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived holding that the hongs waived all of their arguments with respect to an alleged duty to disclose by among other things failing to assert the arguments regarding second restatement  551 holding that where counsel failed to articulate below the arguments they urged on appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence the arguments were waived holding that claims must put parties on sufficient notice of underlying arguments or arguments are deemed waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived