My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00038
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:04 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:30:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153468
Contractor Name
Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District
Water District
0
County
Routt
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />J~~~~~WJ <br />BOYLE ENGINEERING <br />CORPORATE <br /> <br />...~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />BO~/e Eno/neerlno Corporation <br /> <br />1501 Quail Street <br />P,O. 80x 7350 <br />Newport Beach, California 92660 <br /> <br />consultlnQ enalneers f architects <br /> <br />(714) 476-3400' <br />Telex 68.5561 <br /> <br />Dr, Jeris Danielson <br />state Engineer <br />Office of the State Engineer <br />Division of Water Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />May 22, 1986 <br /> <br />RE: Arkansas River Compact Litigation - PrOfessional Services <br />Contract <br /> <br />Dear Jeris: <br /> <br />At our initial meeting with your deputy, Mr. Hal Simpson, we <br />provided him with a copy of Boyle's agreement with the State for <br />professional services in connection with reserved Indian water <br />rights claims (Ute Indian Reservation). We indicated that the <br />indemnification provisions that were incorporated in this <br />agreement might be used as a guideline for our work on the <br />Arkansas River assignment since the provisions had been approved <br />by the Attorney General. We subsequently learned that the State <br />is now insistinq on a broad indemnification which is not limited <br />to the consultant's neqliqent acts, Our in-house attorney, Ms, <br />Susan Menkes, contacted Barry Stein at the Attorney General's <br />office to discuss the new indemnification requirement and he <br />indicated there was no flexibility in modifying the State's <br />position. I am writing you with the hope that this matter can <br />be elevated to the personal attention of the Attorney General <br />and that the indemnification provision negotiated in Boyle I s <br />prior agreements with the State might be incorporated into our <br />contract with your office for our work on the Arkansas River <br />assignment. The rationale for Soyle's position on contractual <br />indemnification requirements which, incidentally, is <br />consistent with that of all professional service firms <br />(engineers, lawyers, etc.) is sUmmarized for your <br />consideration in this letter. <br /> <br />First, all of our professional and general liability insurance <br />coverage is based upon negligence. The indemni tv provisions <br />bevond neqliqence are uninsurable. Furthermore, by signing such <br />an indemnification provision insisted upon by the State, we will <br />jeopardize our liability coverage. This is due to the fact that <br />in order to renew coverage, we must represent to our carriers <br />that we do not agree to indemnifications in our contracts that <br />extend beyond negligence. By acknowledging that we have signed <br />a broad indemnification provision with the State of COlorado, we <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.