424 S.W.3d 237
Tex. App.2014Background
- This appeal concerns whether the trial court properly granted a summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer on a statutory indemnity claim under §82.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
- Fresh Coat sought statutory indemnity from Parex under Chapter 82 for settlements related to claims arising from defective EIFS installed on Montgomery County homes.
- The Texas Supreme Court has held EIFS may support a statutory indemnity claim and the installer is a seller; the manufacturer’s indemnity obligation extends to settlements resulting from EIFS-related lawsuits.
- Parex moved for no-evidence and traditional summary judgment in 2012, arguing Fresh Coat had no evidence that damages arose from a products liability action or that Parex supplied EIFS installed on the homes at issue.
- The trial court granted Parex’s motions and severed the summary judgment, leaving Fresh Coat’s other claims for later proceedings; the issue on appeal is the sufficiency of Fresh Coat’s evidence to show damages arose from a products liability action.
- The court reviews de novo the interpretation of the statute and concludes Fresh Coat offered no competent evidence tying its damages to a products liability action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'action' in §82.002 means a lawsuit/suit. | Fresh Coat argues 'action' includes settlements and actions beyond formal pleadings. | Parex contends 'action' means a lawsuit; letters cannot define actions under the statute. | Action means a suit; no-evidence evidence insufficient. |
| Whether Fresh Coat proved damages arose from a products liability action. | Fresh Coat produced letters and affidavits showing settlements related to EIFS. | Letters and releases do not demonstrate a products liability action; no direct link to suits against Fresh Coat. | No competent evidence showing damages arose from a products liability action. |
| Whether releases and other materials constitute evidence of settlements in products liability actions. | Releases show settlements with homeowners. | Releases include broad claims and do not indicate lawsuits or products liability actions. | Releases do not prove settlements of products liability actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. 2006) (no-evidence standard applies to summary judgments; evidentiary burden on non-movant)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (more than a scintilla of evidence required to defeat no-evidence motion)
- Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1995) ('action' generally synonymous with 'suit' in statutory context)
- Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. 1996) (conclusory affidavits insufficient to raise fact issues)
- Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008) (interpretation of statutes; plain meaning governs)