Owens & Minor, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Products Inc.
Texas Supreme Court
251 S.W.3d 481 (2008)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Owens & Minor, Inc., and Owens & Minor Medical, Inc. (collectively, Owens) (plaintiffs) distributed latex gloves manufactured by others. Kathy Burden and her family members (the Burdens) filed a products-liability action, alleging that Kathy developed an allergy from defective latex gloves manufactured and sold by Owens; Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc. (Ansell) (defendant); Becton, Dickinson and Company (Becton) (defendant); and other manufacturers and sellers. Owens requested that the manufacturers defend Owens pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.002, which required manufacturers to indemnify innocent sellers against losses arising out of products-liability actions. Owens rejected Ansell’s and Becton’s offers to defend Owens on claims involving the products they manufactured. The Burdens dismissed their claims against the manufacturers. Owens filed crossclaims for indemnity against Ansell, Becton, and others and settled with the other companies. The district court granted Ansell and Becton summary judgment, holding that their offers to defend Owens against claims involving their own products satisfied § 82.002. Owens appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a manufacturer fulfilled its obligation under § 82.002 by offering indemnification for and defense of claims concerning the sale of only that manufacturer’s product, or whether the manufacturer had to indemnify and defend the distributor against all claims and then seek contribution from the other manufacturers.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Green, 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.