Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.
14-15-00614-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- Berkel rented a crane from Maxim; while Berkel operated it the boom collapsed and Tyler Lee was injured and sued Berkel, Maxim, and others.
- Maxim filed a cross-claim against Berkel for breach of an indemnification clause in the crane rental agreement.
- The rental agreement required Berkel to indemnify Maxim for personal-injury claims caused by Berkel’s negligence; for claims by Berkel employees the clause required broader "any and all" indemnification.
- Maxim requested a jury question on its breach-of-contract/indemnification claim; the trial court denied the request.
- The jury found Lee’s injuries proximately caused by both parties and apportioned fault 90% to Berkel and 10% to Maxim.
- Maxim appealed, arguing the indemnity claim is viable under Tex. Ins. Code ch. 151 and that the court abused its discretion by refusing to submit the breach question; the appellate record was incomplete (no full reporter’s record or charge conference transcript).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maxim) | Defendant's Argument (Berkel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indemnity clause is enforceable under Tex. Ins. Code ch.151 | Clause is valid and Maxim is entitled to indemnity to extent of Berkel's negligence | Clause is void or limited by Chapter 151; Berkel also argued worker's comp immunity (not decided) | Overruled for lack of preserved error and incomplete record; issues 2–4 denied due to failure to show preservation |
| Whether Maxim preserved error on chapter 151 issues | Trial court allegedly treated indemnity as legal question; Maxim contends it preserved complaints | Berkel relies on record silence and presumption against appellant when record is incomplete | Court presumed preserved-error mechanisms were not used; Maxim failed to demonstrate preservation |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing jury breach-of-contract question | Evidence (documents, testimony, rental agreement) supported submission and Maxim likely prevailed if submitted | Trial court properly refused or error harmless; record omissions prevent review | Court found record incomplete and presumed omitted portions favor trial court; overruled for lack of adequate record to assess harm |
| Whether error (if any) was harmful | Maxim argued harm because denial prevented jury finding on breach and indemnity recovery | Berkel argued no reversible harm shown in record | Court could not assess harm without full reporter's record; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Appleton v. Appleton, 76 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (appellant bears burden to supply appellate record supporting allegations)
- Mason v. Our Lady Star of Sea Catholic Church, 154 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (presumption that omitted portions of partial record support trial court; statement of issues can limit record scope)
- Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2002) (timely statement of issues can allow other parties to request additional reporter's record)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Tasdemiroglu, 25 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (methods required to preserve complaints on question of law)
- 4901 Main, Inc. v. TAS Auto., Inc., 187 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for refusing submission and need to show harm to reverse)