New/Used Machine Purchase Indemnification Clause

Our lawyer is reviewing the terms/conditions of a used machine we are looking at buying and he has no problem with the "hold harmless" clause (i.e. my company will not hold the machine seller liable if someone gets hurt on the machine) but is all worked up about the "indemnification" clause (i.e. we will cover any legal expenses he may incur if someone gets hurt using the machine and decides to sue him instead of / in addition to suing us and or filing a worker's comp claim.) I looked at the terms and conditions of other machines we have purchased in the past and that seems to be pretty standard verbiage. Do you know if indemnification is pretty much an industry standard or are we suckers for having agreed to it in the past? The seller will not sell us the machine without that clause. Thank you!

It is an attorneys job to be paranoid.

In my experience this is a pretty standard clause. I'd guess that your attorney knows that. I'd not be surprised if it is being discussed so as to add a few more billable hours on the contract review.

It's funny b/c I looked at the terms and conditions of previous purchases we've made from various machine suppliers and the same text has been in those contracts, too. So why is everyone freaking out now!?!?