06:24 Oct 30 

Because this is the first line of the insurance disclaimer, I think hold harmless is correct. Indemnity looks toward compensation.
While hold harmless covers the full range relieving from harm in all ways, not only financial. And thanks for clarifying WHO holds who harmless.

21:39 Oct 29 

I'll stick to Norwegian, since I think your Swedish reference was inadvertent. I would probably use "godtgjøre og holde skadesløs" for "indemnify and hold harmless". You may also see "erstatte og holde skadesløs".

20:54 Oct 29 

How would you translate "indemnify and hold harmless" into Swedish then? (Wouldnt it be simply "holde skadesl�s" ?

20:18 Oct 29 

The Supplier is the party that is holding harmless the Company here.

Personally, I would not expand upon the source language by including both the suggested translations. There are actually legal distinctions between them, whether those distinctions are consistently recognized or not. I agree that it is common to combine them in contract language, but that has not been done in the source here.

20:05 Oct 29 

than "hold harmless agreement" (as a header)

20:00 Oct 29 

Either term is ok, or sometimes both are used together (as is often the case with legal language). "shall indemnify and hold harmless" is actually a common term

Or it is called a "hold harmless agreement" (as in the header), and the text says "shall indemnify."