Myers v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.

422 S.E.2d 216 | Court of Appeals of Georgia | 1992

enforcedCited 17 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

An indemnity clause requiring a contractor to indemnify an owner against claims arising from the owner's negligence, except sole negligence, clearly expresses intent to cover joint negligence and is enforceable under Georgia law.

Myers indemnifies Texaco for each and every claim except those arising from Texaco's sole negligence.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992

Related Cases

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.

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.

Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison

2002enforced

A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.

Rory v. Continental Insurance

2005enforced

Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.

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.