In Queen Villas Homeowners Assn. v. TCB Property Management (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1, a homeowners' association sued its property management company for breaching its professional and contractual duties to the association by allowing an association board member to pay herself more than $100,000 for professional services she allegedly rendered to the association. (Queen Villas, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pp. 3-4.) The trial court concluded an indemnity provision in the association's contract with the management company barred the claims. We reversed because the indemnity provision's language did not reflect an intent "that would require a court to interpret the words 'indemnify' or 'hold harmless' . . . beyond the usual context of third party indemnification." (Id. at pp. 6-8.) In Queen Villas, the court concluded there was no comparable language or expression of intent in the indemnity provision that removed it from the general rule that indemnity provisions only apply to third party claims. (Queen Villas, at pp. 7-8.)