United Medical Supply Company, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc.
476 S.W.3d 84
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- United Medical Supply (seller/distributor) was sued in two products-liability actions alleging injuries from repeated latex exposure; plaintiffs sued multiple manufacturers and sellers, generally alleging defendants "manufactured and/or sold" defective latex gloves.
- United Medical filed indemnity cross-claims against multiple manufacturers, then nonsuited all but Ansell after determining it had sold Ansell gloves to the hospital where plaintiffs worked during the alleged exposure period.
- The indemnity claims were severed and administratively stayed pending Texas Supreme Court decisions addressing manufacturers’ duty to indemnify sellers in multi-manufacturer glove suits.
- After Owens & Minor (Tex. 2008) held a manufacturer need only indemnify/defend claims relating to its own product, United Medical tried its indemnity claim against Ansell; Ansell argued United Medical failed to segregate expenses and improperly targeted a single manufacturer.
- Trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for United Medical; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for determination of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees recoverable from Ansell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a manufacturer’s duty to indemnify is triggered by a plaintiff’s general allegation that a seller sold a defective product made by that manufacturer | United Medical: pleadings alleging the seller sold a manufacturer’s product trigger statutory indemnity when the seller actually sold that manufacturer’s product to the relevant facility | Ansell: pleadings must specifically allege that the seller sold that manufacturer’s product before duty arises | Held: Duty can be triggered where plaintiff’s petition alleges the product is defective and seller sold the manufacturer’s product; Hudiburg’s pleading clarity requirement does not expand statute beyond its text |
| Scope of manufacturer’s indemnity obligation in multi-manufacturer suits | United Medical: entitled to recover all litigation expenses related to Ansell’s product even if expenses also related to other manufacturers | Ansell: Owens & Minor limits recovery; a manufacturer need only cover expenses tied to its product and seller must segregate costs among manufacturers | Held: Manufacturer only must indemnify expenses associated with its product; seller need not apportion shared expenses pro rata and may recover reasonable expenses tied to that manufacturer’s product |
| Burden to segregate or pursue all manufacturers before recovery | United Medical: no requirement to pursue every manufacturer or pro rata apportionment; evidence showing seller sold only Ansell gloves suffices | Ansell: seller must pursue indemnity from all implicated manufacturers and segregate expenses among them | Held: Seller need not pursue or join all manufacturers; segregation is not a precondition to recovery when seller shows expenses relate to the particular manufacturer’s product |
| Standard of review / waiver from lack of findings | United Medical: undisputed facts present legal question reviewable de novo; no waiver | Ansell: failure to challenge any implied fact findings waives appellate attack | Held: Court treats facts here as undisputed and reviews legal entitlement de novo; United Medical’s legal arguments were not waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens & Minor, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc., 251 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. 2008) (holds manufacturer need only defend/indemnify claims relating to its own product in multi-manufacturer suits)
- General Motors Corp. v. Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2006) (statutory indemnity triggered by plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s product is defective; clarifies notice/pleading requirements)
- Fitzgerald v. Advance Spine Fixation Sys., 996 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. 1999) (seller entitled to indemnity where plaintiff’s petition alleges the seller sold the manufacturer’s product even if later proved otherwise)
- Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. United Medical Supply Co., 355 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (appellate decision recognizing recovery of litigation expenses related to a manufacturer’s product despite overlap with defense of other manufacturers)