Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp.
997 S.W.2d 203 | Texas Supreme Court | 1999
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Valero sued a general contractor and subcontractor over faulty equipment. Both defendants relied on indemnification clauses in their contract to avoid liability. Years later, they tried to claim attorney's fees under those same indemnification clauses. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that indemnification claims don't legally exist until the indemnitee's liability is locked in by a court judgment. This means subcontractors can't be forced to bring indemnity claims early—they mature only when liability becomes certain.
Key Takeaways
- •Indemnification claims don't accrue until liability is fixed by judgment, not when the underlying injury occurs. This gives you more time to pursue these claims.
- •You cannot be barred from an indemnity claim by res judicata or statute of limitations if your liability wasn't yet certain in the original lawsuit.
- •Document when your liability becomes 'fixed and certain'—typically by final judgment or settlement—as this is the trigger date for your indemnification claim to mature.
A claim based on indemnification does not accrue until liability becomes fixed and certain.
Frequently Asked Question
When can I file an indemnification claim against my general contractor?
Your indemnification claim doesn't legally exist until your liability becomes fixed and certain, usually by court judgment or final settlement. You cannot be forced to file it earlier in the original lawsuit, and waiting won't bar your claim by statute of limitations or res judicata rules.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
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.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
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
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.
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
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
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.