Walmart Inc. v. Reddy Ice Corporation, 5:24-cv-05065

Background

Walmart and Reddy Ice entered into a Supplier Agreement in 2013 for Reddy Ice to provide bagged ice in Walmart stores, which included an indemnification provision.
In June 2016, a customer slipped and fell on water in a Walmart store, determined to have leaked from a Reddy Ice freezer due to a malfunctioning heater.
The injured party sued both Walmart and Reddy Ice. Reddy Ice obtained summary judgment in state court (unopposed), and Walmart subsequently settled with the plaintiffs.
Walmart brought this federal suit seeking indemnity or contribution from Reddy Ice for the settlement and attorneys’ fees.
Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether Reddy Ice was contractually obligated to indemnify Walmart under their agreement.
The court granted summary judgment to Walmart, holding that the indemnification clause was triggered and required Reddy Ice to indemnify Walmart.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the indemnity clause require Reddy Ice to indemnify Walmart for losses arising from the freezer leak?	The agreement broadly covers losses from injury linked to Reddy Ice’s merchandise, displays, or acts, regardless of cause, unless Walmart’s conduct was the sole cause.	Walmart was at fault as premises owner; Reddy Ice had no duty to indemnify for Walmart’s sole negligence, especially after being dismissed from underlying suit.	Yes; indemnity provision covers these facts unless Walmart was sole cause, which the facts do not establish.
Does Arkansas law allow indemnification for Walmart’s own negligence under the contract language?	Yes; the indemnity clause uses clear, unequivocal language broad enough to require indemnification for Walmart’s own negligence, unless it was the sole cause.	No; indemnity for an indemnitee’s own negligence must be unmistakable, and Reddy Ice claims the language falls short.	Yes; clause is sufficiently broad and covers Walmart’s own negligence, except for loss solely caused by Walmart.
Does the state court summary judgment for Reddy Ice preclude Walmart’s contractual indemnity claim (collateral estoppel)?	No; this case is about contractual attribution of loss, not negligence to the injured party.	Yes; Reddy Ice argues its non-liability in state court precludes indemnity.	No; underlying dismissal determined liability to claimant, not contractual relationship to Walmart.
Does the indemnity provision extend to the freezer as "Merchandise" and its display?	Yes; the freezer qualifies as merchandise or equipment and its display in the store caused the loss.	No; Reddy Ice argues freezer was not a “display” and liability is overbroad.	Yes; freezer fits definition and its display caused the injury, triggering indemnity.

Key Cases Cited

Pickens-Bond Constr. Co. v. N. Little Rock Elec. Co., 249 Ark. 389 (language requiring indemnification for damage from "whatever cause" covers indemnitee’s own negligence except where sole proximate cause)
Ark. Kraft Corp. v. Bayed Sanders Constr. Co., 298 Ark. 36 (indemnity for "any and all claims" not broad enough for indemnitee’s own negligence)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 292 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2002) (broad indemnity clause covers Walmart’s negligence as long as loss arose "in whole or in part" from supplier’s product)