Honeywell v. Gada Builders, Inc.
271 P.3d 88
Okla. Civ. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Don Honeywell's home burned after a lightning strike; he sued Builder (GADA Builders, Inc.) and Plumber (Larry Brannon Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc.) for negligence and breach of contract.
- Plumber filed a third-party petition against Gastite, the CSST manufacturer; Gastite appeared and later Gastite was added as a Defendant; Plaintiff pursued damages against Gastite, Builder, and Plumber.
- Plaintiff later filed a Second Amended Petition abandoning negligence and pleading strict products liability against Gastite, Builder, and Plumber; underlying action later settled; Plaintiff dismissed all claims.
- Builder and Plumber sought indemnification from Gastite under 12 O.S. Supp.2004 § 832.1 for fees and costs in defending the product liability action; trial court granted partial summary judgment for those fees incurred after Gastite’s counsel appeared.
- Question presented: when did Gastite’s indemnity duty arise under § 832.1 to cover defense costs; the case involved whether Builder was a 'seller' and whether the product liability action had been triggered by pleadings.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court held Builder was a seller, the Amended Petition triggered indemnity, and pre-May 31, 2007 fees were improperly awarded; remanded for calculating fees from May 31, 2007 forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does indemnity attach under § 832.1? | Pleadings against seller triggered indemnity. | Indemnity tied to third-party filings and/or later amendments. | Indemnity was triggered by May 31, 2007 (Amended Petition), not earlier. |
| Is Builder a 'seller' under § 832.1? | Builder functioned in the distribution chain and sold CSST. | Builder was not a retail seller/distributor. | Builder is a 'seller' under § 832.1. |
| Does the 'exception' to indemnity apply if seller's independent negligence is not proven? | No independent negligence by Builder/Plumber needed to invoke indemnity. | Exception requires proof the seller's independent negligence caused the injury. | Exception does not apply; indemnity remains available where plaintiff's product-liability pleadings exist and independent negligence is not proven. |
| Does Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co. control § 832.1 interpretation after 2004 Florida? Oklahoma enactment supersedes Booker. | Statute governs; Booker has limited relevance. | Booker informs indemnity principles despite new statute. | Statute controls; Booker is superseded for this issue. |
| Did the trial court err by awarding fees for the period before May 31, 2007? | Fees incurred defend ing the product-related claims are covered once indemnity attached. | Fees prior to May 31, 2007 were not incurred in a product liability action. | Yes, pre-May 31, 2007 fees must be excluded; remand to calculate from May 31, 2007 forward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) (recognizes products liability foundations for indemnity concepts)
- Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co., 44 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2001) (treats indemnity exception as not proven by pleadings alone)
- Toyota Industrial Equip. Mfg. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc., 325 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. 2010) (affirming indemnity based on pleadings showing product-based injury)
- Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 785 P.2d 297 (Okla. 1989) (pre-statute indemnity principles for sellers)
- Moss v. Polyco, Inc., 522 P.2d 622 (Okla. 1974) (policy basis for imposing strict liability on distributors/retailers)