Maxus Exploration Co. v. Moran Bros., Inc.
817 S.W.2d 50 | Texas Supreme Court | 1991
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Two Texas companies signed a drilling contract using a standard industry form that included mutual indemnity clauses requiring each party to cover the other's liability claims, even when caused by negligence. When a contractor's employee was injured during drilling in Kansas, a dispute arose over whether these broad indemnity provisions were enforceable. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Kansas law applied and upheld the indemnity clause as valid and binding. This matters to subcontractors because it confirms that mutual indemnity agreements in construction contracts—especially those using standard industry forms—will be enforced by courts, even when they require you to cover the other party's negligence.
Key Takeaways
- •Mutual indemnity clauses in standard form contracts are enforceable, even if they require you to indemnify the other party for their own negligence—review these clauses carefully before signing.
- •Insurance requirements tied to indemnity obligations are enforceable; ensure your insurance limits match what the contract requires or you may face uninsured liability exposure.
- •The location where work is performed determines which state's law applies to your contract, so understand the governing law clause and how it affects your indemnity obligations.
The indemnity clause is valid and enforceable under Kansas law.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a construction contract force me to pay for injuries caused by the other party's negligence?
Yes, if the contract includes a mutual indemnity clause. Courts will enforce these provisions even when they require you to cover the other party's negligence. This is especially true with standard industry forms. Always review indemnity language and ensure your insurance limits match the contract's requirements before signing.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
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
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
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
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.
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.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.