CMA-CGM (America), Inc. v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.

416 S.W.3d 495 | Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) | 2013

enforcedCited 12 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

What This Case Means for Subcontractors

A truck driver was injured when equipment owned by CMA-CGM broke during a cargo transfer. CMA tried to use a standard industry contract (UIIA) to force Empire Truck Lines to cover CMA's legal costs and damages. The Texas court ruled that state law prohibits motor carriers from indemnifying equipment owners for the owners' own negligence, making the indemnity clause unenforceable. This protects subcontractors and carriers from being forced to pay for injuries or damages caused by someone else's faulty equipment or negligence.

Key Takeaways

  • Never agree to indemnify a company for their own negligence—Texas law voids these clauses for motor carriers and similar situations
  • Standard industry contracts (like UIIA) may contain illegal provisions; have a lawyer review before signing, even if the form is 'standard'
  • If a contract requires you to insure or defend another party, make sure it's limited to your own actions only, not theirs

A provision that is contrary to Subsection (a) is not enforceable.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston), 2013

Frequently Asked Question

Can a contract force me to pay for damages caused by the other company's faulty equipment or negligence?

No. Texas law prohibits indemnity clauses that require you to cover another party's own negligence. Even if a standard contract includes this language, courts will not enforce it. Always have a lawyer review indemnity provisions before signing.

Related Cases

Gall v. United States

2007enforced

Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston

2001reversed

Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

1995remanded

Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville

1993remanded

An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.

1999enforced

A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.

In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

2005enforced

The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.