Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc. v. United Medical
355 S.W.3d 736
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Cheyanne Talley’s product liability action names United Medical and Ansell among many defendants for allergic reaction to latex gloves at Texas Children's Hospital.
- United Medical nonsuits from Talley and then moves for partial summary judgment on indemnity under Chapter 82 CPRC against Ansell and Safeskin.
- Trial court grants partial summary judgment on liability; later a bench trial determines the amount of Ansell's indemnity obligation.
- United Medical presents expert testimony accounting for $329,781.30 in recoverable fees; Ansell presents expert testimony arguing much lower fees are reasonable.
- Trial court awards United Medical indemnity of $74,037.11, attorney’s fees of $249,220.49, and appellate and Supreme Court fee provisions ($30,000, $12,500, $15,000).
- Ansell appeals, challenging segregation of indemnifiable costs, reasonableness of fees, and appellate-fee provisions; court modifies appellate-fee award to be contingent on success on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are United Medical's indemnifiable costs properly limited to Ansell-related claims? | Ansell contends costs must be segregated and limited to Ansell's product claims. | United Medical argues costs tied to defending Ansell's product are recoverable even if some related to other manufacturers' products. | Costs tied to Ansell's product are recoverable; segregation not required for unrelated claims if related costs are recoverable. |
| Is the trial award of attorney's fees reasonable as a matter of law? | Ansell argues fees are excessive relative to the indemnity amount and case’s uniqueness. | United Medical contends the fees are reasonable and supported by Arthur Andersen factors and trial record. | Trial evidence supports the reasonableness of the awarded attorney's fees. |
| Should appellate attorney's fees be contingent on the outcome of the appeal? | Ansell argues appellate fees should depend on who prevails on appeal. | United Medical argues for unconditional appellate-fee award. | Appellate fees must be contingent on the prevailing party on appeal; the judgment is modified accordingly. |
| Does the one-satisfaction rule apply to this settlement and indemnity dispute? | Ansell seeks a settlement credit against indemnity if joint liability exists with Safeskin. | No joint liability exists here; the award is for Ansell's indemnity breach only. | One-satisfaction rule does not apply; no settlement credit against Ansell's indemnity is awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Auto., Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co., 44 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2001) (defines scope of 'products liability action' and indemnity exceptions)
- Owens & Minor, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc., 251 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. 2008) (limits indemnity to claims related to the manufacturer's own products)
- Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. 1999) (indemnity rights extend to innocent sellers; product-sale basis required)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (standard for reasonableness of attorney's fees; recovery of recoverable services)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review and deference to fact-finder)
- Keith v. Keith, 221 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (contingent appellate fees principle for fee awards)
- Sipco Servs. Marine v. Wyatt Field Serv. Co., 857 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (contingent appellate-fees principle)
- Pao v. Brays Village Homeowners Ass'n, 905 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (modification to appellate-fee awards based on outcome)