Hi Csaba,

I would see indemnify as to insure or protect against loss or liability, in a more protective and restorative manner.

'Hold harmless' would, in my opinion, refer more MAINTAIN, where possible, the company free from loss or liability. It is a very fine line, indeed.

I think the proper word here should be "blameless"..in other words, free of blame or responsibility.

Indemnify means to compensate or make amends for any damage done.

Hope this helps.
terry

and a liable party "indemnifies" the damage done (i.e., gives compensation for).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-04-15 18:34:48 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

The sentence could this be rephrased as \"to defend and compensate the institution, and consider it free from responsibility/liability...\"

To hold harmless means to free from responsibility while to inmdemnify means to exempt from penalty (for actions) or to compensate for loss

To indemnify = to hold harmless:

See - "Indemnity Clause" (actually the quoted phrase is from such a clause) - A contractual provision in which one party agrees to answer for any specified or unspecified liability or harm that the other party might incur. - Also termed "hold-harmless clause; save-harmless clause".

To indemnify - 1. to reimburse (another) for a loss suffered because of a 3d party's act or default. 2. To promise to reimburse (another) for such a loss. 3. To give (another) security against such a loss.

To hold harmless - to absolve (another party) from any responsibility for damare or other liability arising from the transaction, TO INDEMNIFY.

Sorry to come to this one just now. It’s been while since I dropped in on the EN>EN pages!

Liability and indemnity are not to be confused. They are quite different.

If A is held liable for an accident, he may have to compensate the injured party, B. If A has insurance, then that insurer C will indemnify A for the money he has had to pay over to B. The relationship between A and C is contractual. C cannot be held liable for A’s action or omission.

There is also something called vicarious liability where Y may be held liable for X’s acts or omissions where Y has authorised those acts or omissions. A classic example would be the relationship between an employer and an employee. Where the employee, X, causes damage to a third party, Z, and that damage occurred in the course of X doing his job, then it is likely that the employer, Y would be held vicariously liable. As and when Z decides to take legal action, he can generally choose to sue either Y or X (even both) although his best bet would usually be to pursue Y as he would have better cover.

Your question is about whether “hold harmless” and indemnify” are the same. Yes, going back to the first example, C agrees to hold A harmless (to protect A), by agreeing to indemnify him – hence the shipowners’ insurance mutuals known as “protection and indemnity clubs”.

I conclude by saying that it is not safe to say that holding someone harmless is tantamount to saying they are not liable. Indeed, to say so, would be erroneous. It means agreeing to protect a party where they ARE found liable. (It does not mean they are not liable, nor does it mean that the indemninfier becomes liable in their shoes, as it were).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-04-29 14:45:32 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

(It does not mean they (*) are not liable, nor does it mean that the indemninfier becomes liable in their shoes, as it were).

* the \"they\" here being the party which agrees to indemnify - thus neither liable instead of or along with the party responsible for having caused the damage.