automated call services, “in some instances in connection with operators.” The district court permissibly interpreted the indemnity clause language encompassing “any and all” damages, to conclude that no material issue of fact regarding indemnity existed, and that the entire settlement amount arose from and was connected to Syntellect’s infringement. The district court’s decision is supported by its review of the evidence, including the nature of the Katz claims, the types of calls included in the settlement, and the expansive indemnity agreement. No material issue of fact was raised regarding whether Syntellect’s indemnity obligation extends to all damages included in the settlement. Cf. Peter Culley & Assocs. v. Superior Ct., 10 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1497, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 (1992) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not
holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract holding that the trial courts exclusion of evidence about a partys damages was at best harmless error because the partys method of calculating damages contravened indiana law and was without merit holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation holding that a party may rescind a contract and avoid liability thereunder if the partys consent to the contract was procured by the other partys either fraudulent or nonfraudulent material misrepresentations holding that allocation of damages may be appropriate if the contract limits the partys indemnity obligation