 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IMC Fertilizer6/13/1996
filed June 13, 1996
OPINION ON REHEARING
We deny appellee's motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc, withdraw our opinion of February 2, 1995, and substitute this opinion in its stead.
This case questions the effectiveness of a liability release that names an insured party but not the insurance carrier. The appellants, IMC Fertilizer, Inc., and IMC Fertilizer Group, Inc. (collectively IMC), appeal a partial summary judgement granted in favor of the appellee, Angus Chemical Company (Angus), which finds that an unnamed liability carrier is not released when the insured is released. In its first two points of error, IMC contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgement for Angus and denying IMC's motion on the same issue. In its third point of error, IMC contends the trial court erred in severing the topic upon which summary judgement was granted. We reverse the trial court's judgement in favor of Angus and render judgment in favor of IMC.
Summary of Facts
Angus owns a nitroparaffin plant in Louisiana that is managed by IMC. On May 1, 1991, part of the plant exploded, and hundreds of people sued Angus and IMC in Texas for personal injuries. Angus crossclaimed against IMC, seeking recovery for property damage as well as reimbursement for third-party claims Angus had settled. On April 1, 1993, Angus and IMC signed a settlement agreement which provided that IMC would pay Angus $180 million over three years. In exchange, Angus released IMC from all claims arising from the May 1, 1991, explosion, except indemnity or contribution arising from thirdparty claims. The settlement agreement was incorporated into an agreed judgement entered April 23, 1993, in favor of Angus. On April 22, 1993, Angus filed suit against IMC and its insurers in Louisiana for recovery of its costs relating to third-party claims, among other things. On August 26, 1993, IMC filed suit against Angus in Texas under various theories of recovery, including declaratory judgement on the interpretation of its settlement agreement. Angus counterclaimed in the Texas suit on the same causes of action asserted in its Louisiana suit.
Angus moved for partial summary judgement in the Texas suit on the grounds that the settlement agreement did not release IMC's insurers from any liability because it did not specifically name the carriers. Angus' motion included a second ground addressing IMC's liability for third-party claims. In a separate partial summary judgement not before this Court, the trial court found that Angus had not released IMC from any indemnity or contribution claims regarding third parties, including those settled before the date of the agreement. In IMC's cross-motion for summary judgment, it agreed that no fact issues existed as to whether the settlement agreement released its insurers. IMC argued that it was entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law because the insurers' liability was derivative of IMC's liability.
The trial court entered partial summary judgement in favor of Angus, finding that, under Texas law, the agreement did not release IMC's insurers. The trial court severed this claim, and IMC appeals the final summary judgment.
Release of the Insurance Companies
In its first two points of error, IMC contends the trial court erred in (1) denying its motion for summary judgment, and (2) granting Angus' motion for summary judgment. IMC challenges the relief granted in the summary judgement and the trial court's application of Texas law.
1. Standard of Review
Summary judgement is proper when the movant establishes there are no genuine issues of materi
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|