Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.

996 S.W.2d 864 | Texas Supreme Court | 1999

enforcedCited 1,055 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

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.

A manufacturer shall indemnify and hold harmless a seller against loss arising out of a products liability action.

Texas Supreme Court, 1999

Related Cases

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.

1998modified

A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers

2009enforced

A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.

Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

2000remanded

Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.

Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

2010enforced

A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.

The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority

2017enforced

An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.

1993enforced

An insurer's duty to defend under a CGL policy is triggered when complaints allege covered occurrences, even if latent injuries from asbestos exposure manifest after the policy period, and pollution exclusions do not apply to occupational asbestos inhalation injuries.