Siebe, Inc. v. Louis M. Gerson Co.

74 Mass. App. Ct. 544 | Massachusetts Appeals Court | 2009

remandedCited 344 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A manufacturer's contractual duty to defend a distributor against product liability claims is triggered by allegations falling within the policy's coverage under the pleadings test, even without proof of actual breach.

Gerson agreed to defend Siebe against any claims arising out of breach of warranties.

Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2009

Related Cases

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

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.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

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.