tardiness without prejudice. Id. at 911-12 (noting that indemnitee did not lack timely notice of the underlying action). The court ruled that a twenty-month delay in seeking indemnity and a three-year delay in filing a third-party complaint against the indemnitor did not preclude recovery. Id. Here, taking all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Duncan-Williams, the Moving Defendants knew of the suit at least as early as October 2004. PL’s Facts ¶ 10 (noting a deposition by Borgosz in the Vest action on October 1, 2004). If the bonds defaulted in September 2003 as alleged, the Moving Defendants were on notice of the suit at most thirteen months after the bond default, and therefore the timing of the suit did not cause prejudice. Cf. Ex parte Jones, 939 So.2d, at 917-18 (<HOLDING>). b. Alabama Law Does Not Permit
holding that a duty not to cause injury to another by ones negligent act is too broad to serve as a basis for permitting indemnity of an employer to a third party holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity holding that reinsurance is a mere contract of indemnity holding that a party that settled but failed to immediately notify a third party of indemnity claims did not waive indemnity claims