Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In April 1997, Frank Billingsley entered into a contract for the construction of a new home. The contract required the home to be constructed using traditional cement stucco on the exterior of the residence. Without Billingsley’s knowledge, Traditional Concepts Inc., contracted with Fresh-Coat Inc. for installation of an artificial stucco known as an Exterior Insulating and Finish System (EIFS). The EIFS was installed by Parex Inc. After a period of time, Billingsley noticed water seeping through the exterior of the home. Moisture testing revealed that EIFS caused the moisture penetration. Five or six years after the initial contract with the builder, Billingsley filed suit against the contractor, the subcontractor, Parex Inc. and others for the damage incurred because of installation of the artificial stucco. In his second amended petition, Billingsley alleged a cause of action for products liability against Parex. Parex, in turn, filed a third-party contribution and indemnity claim against seven parties, including SFI. Parex subsequently dismissed its claims against SFI. SFI filed suit against Tamlyn for contribution and indemnity under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. SFI alleged that Tamlyn manufactured window flashing, which was a component part of EIFS. SFI further alleged it was an innocent seller of the window flashing as defined in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �82.001(3). SFI contends it is entitled to indemnity under �82.002 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, because it sustained a loss in a products liability action. On March 15, 2005, SFI filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judicial determination of Tamlyn’s duty to indemnify SFI. Tamlyn responded to SFI’s motion contending SFI failed to establish as a matter of law that the underlying plaintiff alleged a products liability action involving defective window flashing manufactured by Tamlyn. Tamlyn filed a no evidence motion for summary judgment contending there was no allegation of a defect in window flashing manufactured by Tamlyn in the underlying plaintiff’s pleadings. The trial court granted SFI’s motion for summary judgment and awarded SFI $14,275.38 for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with defending the Parex suit and $13,239.75 attorney’s fees and costs incurred while prosecuting the indemnity action. In its first two issues, Tamlyn challenges the trial court’s finding that products liability claims were directed toward Tamlyn’s window flashing. In its third issue, Tamlyn challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support SFI’s damages and attorney’s fees. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �82.002, the court stated, creates a statutory duty of indemnification in a products liability action in addition to any duty to indemnify established by law, contract, or otherwise. Section 82.002(a) provides that a manufacturer “shall indemnify and hold harmless a seller against loss arising out of a products liability action, except for any loss caused by the seller’s negligence, intentional misconduct, or other act or omission, such as negligently modifying or altering the product, for which the seller is independently liable.” In this case, the court stated that Tamlyn did not dispute that it is a manufacturer of window flashing, nor did it dispute that SFI is a seller under the statute. Tamlyn argued that Billingsley did not allege a defect in its window flashing sufficient to trigger a statutory right of indemnity for SFI under �82.002, the court summarized. Contrary to SFI’s argument, the court stated, a bare allegation that a product is defective does not constitute an assertion that all of its unnamed component parts are defective. For a component product manufacturer to be subject to a duty to indemnify a seller under �82.002, the claimant’s pleadings must include an allegation of a defect in the component, not merely a defect in the seller’s product which consist of many components. In this case, the court noted that there was no mention in Billingsley’s pleadings about defective window flashing. Accordingly, the court concluded that SFI has no right to indemnity against Tamlyn under �82.002. Because the court sustained Tamlyn’s first issue, reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment that SFI take nothing, it did not address points of error regarding SFI’s damages and attorneys’ fees. OPINION:Seymore, J.; Hedges, C.J., and Yates and Seymore, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.