CMA-CGM (America), Inc. v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.
416 S.W.3d 495
Tex. App.2013Background
- In Oct. 2003 Empire Truck Lines (TX motor carrier) directed driver Hector Aguirre to interchange CMA-owned chassis at the Port of Houston; the chassis broke during hookup and Aguirre was injured. Aguirre sued; CMA later sought indemnity from Empire under a standard Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA).
- The UIIA (an industry form administered by IANA in Maryland) contains an indemnity clause requiring motor carriers to defend/indemnify equipment providers and an insurance clause requiring a commercial auto policy with a UIIE-1 endorsement naming the equipment provider as additional insured.
- Texas Transportation Code § 623.0155 (effective Sept. 1, 1997) prohibits requiring motor carriers to indemnify third parties for the third party’s own negligence in defined contexts.
- Prior appeals: this court earlier held Maryland law applied and treated the UIIA as an enforceable insurance contract, but remanded for consideration whether § 623.0155 barred the indemnity; later remanded again because the effective date of the indemnity provision (pre- vs. post-1997) was factually unclear.
- On remand Empire showed the specific UIIA indemnity language requiring indemnity for the equipment owner’s own negligence was added in 2000 (or reflected in the 2002 form); the trial court applied Texas law, held § 623.0155 barred enforcement of the indemnity, and granted summary judgment for Empire. CMA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law (Maryland v. Texas) | Maryland choice-of-law in UIIA controls; law of the case required applying Maryland law | Texas has a more significant relationship; applying Maryland would contravene Texas public policy (§ 623.0155) | Texas law applies to the indemnity issue; application of Maryland law would contravene Texas policy |
| Effective date / applicability of §623.0155 | Empire entered UIIA in 1988 (or CMA and Empire bound earlier), so § 623.0155 (post-1997) does not apply | The indemnity obligating Empire to cover CMA's own negligence was added in 2000/2002, so it post-dates § 623.0155 | Indemnity provision at issue post-dates Sept. 1, 1997; § 623.0155 applies |
| Scope of §623.0155 (does it cover intermodal interchange) | § 623.0155 does not apply to intermodal equipment interchange; it targets transportation-for-hire/shippers | § 623.0155(a)(3) covers services incidental to transportation, including interchange; Empire was performing compensated carrier services | § 623.0155(a)(3) applies to the UIIA indemnity for intermodal interchange; the indemnity is unenforceable |
| Insurance/production and endorsement issues | Empire breached independent insurance obligations by late production of auto policy and by using an older UIIE-1 form; those breaches preclude summary judgment | CMA never sought coverage from IANA or filed as an additional insured; any variance in form is immaterial because the policy incorporated subsequent amendments | CMA failed to show how late production or endorsement variance created a fact issue defeating the § 623.0155-based summary judgment; issues either unpleaded or without prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Oper. Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (summary-judgment burden rules)
- DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990) (choice-of-law test for enforcing contractual choice-of-law)
- Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 94 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (applying Restatement §188/§6 factors to indemnity choice-of-law)