vRide Inc., F/K/A VPSI, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
05-15-01377-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- vRide, a vanpool provider, leased a Ford E-350 van; passenger James Cernosek was seriously injured when the van was struck by a drunk driver.
- The Cernoseks sued the drunk driver and Ford, alleging the Ford van was defective and not crashworthy; they later sued vRide alleging misrepresentation, negligence, and fraud about vehicle safety features.
- vRide sought indemnity from Ford under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 82 (manufacturer’s duty to indemnify a seller in a "products liability action").
- Ford offered conditional defense/indemnity; vRide rejected the offer, settled with the Cernoseks, then sued Ford for indemnity.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment raised the threshold question whether the Cernoseks’ petition against vRide pleaded a “products liability action” (i.e., damages caused by a defective product).
- The trial court granted Ford’s motion and denied vRide’s; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the petition did not allege a defective product as required by Chapter 82.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (vRide) | Defendant's Argument (Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Cernoseks’ misrepresentation/alleged promises that vRide provided "Safe, Reliable Transportation" pleaded a products liability action | Misrepresentations necessarily require proof the van was unsafe/defective, so claims fall within Chapter 82 | Claims target vRide’s representations/selection practices, not an allegation that the van itself was defective | Held: Misrepresentation allegations against vRide did not plead a products liability action; no allegation the van was defective |
| Whether negligence allegations (failure to furnish vehicles with side-curtain airbags, etc.) pleaded a products liability action | Allegations that absence of safety systems caused the injuries equate to alleging a defective vehicle, triggering Chapter 82 | Petition lacks allegations that the van was defective, unreasonably dangerous, or suffered a manufacturing/design/marketing defect | Held: Negligence allegations did not plead a products liability action; plaintiffs did not assert the vehicle was defective |
| Whether references to safety or to a product suffice without using "magic words" like "defective" or "unreasonably dangerous" | Chapter 82 is broad; product-focused factual allegations suffice irrespective of label | Statute requires allegations that damages arose from a defective product; mere product references are insufficient | Held: Labels not required, but petition must allege damages caused by a defective product; mere product references here were insufficient |
| Whether the court erred by granting summary judgment for Ford on Chapter 82 indemnity | vRide sought reversal and render that Ford owed indemnity | Ford maintained Chapter 82 does not apply because no products liability action was pled | Held: No error; summary judgment affirmed because petition did not allege defects required to trigger Chapter 82 indemnity |
Key Cases Cited
- Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Head, 454 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. 2014) (Chapter 82 protects innocent sellers when petition alleges manufacturer’s product is defective)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. 1995) (definition of defective product: unreasonably dangerous because of marketing, design, or manufacturing defect)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2007) (distinguishing manufacturing-defect claims)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006) (safer-alternative-design standard for design-defect claims)
- Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (marketing-defect/failure-to-warn principles)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2006) (duty to indemnify is triggered by allegations of a defect in the manufacturer’s product)
- Centerpoint Builders GP, LLC v. Trussway, Ltd., 496 S.W.3d 33 (Tex. 2016) (broad interpretation of statute, but still requires defect-caused damages)
- Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. Hyundai Motor Co., 995 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1999) (uncrashworthiness and related products-liability principles)