would be read into all service contracts, “regardless of the circumstances, and without regard to the fault of the proposed indemnitee.” Id. Johnson, 481 N.W.2d at 318-19. Thus, Johnson confirms that there is no blanket requirement of indemnity in all service contracts. The second portion of the Johnson decision that is instructive here is its discussion of what constitutes the necessary “independent duty”: On cross-examination by Interstate’s counsel, a D & J representative testified that D & J expected to use the electricity safely. The representative also testified that D & J would anticipate that Interstate would expect D & J to use the electricity safely. Interstate argues that this testimony establishes an independent . Co., 259 Iowa 314, 326-27, 144 N.W.2d 303, 310-11 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Significantly, on redirect the D & J
holding that a choice of law provision in a lease did not serve as a basis for jurisdiction holding that duty not to cause injury to another by ones negligent act is too broad to serve as a basis for permitting 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 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 equitable indemnity lies where one person is exposed to liability by the wrongful act of another in which he does not join