Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

Summary

This document is a partial dissent by Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd of the Supreme Court of Texas concerning indemnity obligations under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 82.002 in a products-liability action involving an allegedly defective finished product and component part. The dissent agrees with the Court's treatment of spoliation sanctions and the statute-of-limitations defense but disagrees that Petroleum Solutions was required to indemnify Titeflex for losses arising solely from allegations that Titeflex's component product was defective.

Holdings

1. In Justice Boyd's view, section 82.002 requires a manufacturer to indemnify a seller only for losses related to allegations that the manufacturer's own product was defective; it does not require indemnification for losses incurred defending claims that another manufacturer's product was defective.
2. The indemnity duty is triggered by an allegation that a product is defective, while the statutory exception applies only upon an actual finding that the seller's independent conduct caused the plaintiff's injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a spoliation instruction and striking Petroleum Solutions's statute-of-limitations defense.
2. Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 82.002 requires the manufacturer of a finished product to indemnify the manufacturer or seller of a component product for losses incurred defending allegations that the component manufacturer's own product was defective.
3. Whether the scope of a manufacturer's statutory indemnity duty in a multiple-product products-liability action is limited to losses related to allegations concerning the manufacturer's own product.

Disposition

other