Frymire Engineering Co. v. Jomar International, Ltd.
Texas Supreme Court
259 S.W.3d 140 (2008)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Renaissance Hotel (Renaissance) hired general contractor Price Woods, Inc. to renovate one of its properties. Price Woods hired Frymire Engineering Company (Frymire) (plaintiff) to complete the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) work. Frymire’s contract with Price Woods required Frymire to maintain insurance and included an agreement that Frymire would indemnify both Price Woods and Renaissance for any damages it caused. Frymire obtained insurance from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) (plaintiff). In its work on Renaissance, Frymire used a valve made by Jomar International, Ltd. (Jomar) (defendant). The valve failed, causing Renaissance to flood. Instead of making a claim against Jomar, Renaissance demanded payment from Frymire. Liberty Mutual paid Renaissance’s damages, which totaled $460,000, and Frymire paid its deductible for the insurance claim. Liberty Mutual and Frymire subsequently sued Jomar for equitable subrogation of their payments to Renaissance. Frymire presented evidence to the trial court that a design defect in Jomar’s valve was the primary cause of the flooding. The trial court granted Jomar’s motion for summary judgment without explanation, and the court of appeals affirmed. Frymire and Liberty Mutual appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Willet, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
