## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 6 6 - CV
JA N E D O E, I N D I V I D U A LLYA N D AP P EL L AN T A S N E X TF R IE N D F O R S A L L Y D O E , A MI NOR V . TEX A S A SSO C I A TI O N O F S CH OOLB OAR DS , I NC . AN D TE X A S A S S O C I A TI O N O F S C H O O L BOA RDS RI SK M AN AG EM ENT F UN D APPE L L EE S

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 158TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on I n one i ssue, appel l antJane D oe, i ndi vi d u al l y and as nextf r i end f orher dau ght erSal l y Doe, a m i nor , ap pea l s t he t r i alco urt ’ s or dergr ant i ng t he
sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i ons ofap pel l ees T exas A ssoci at i on of S choo l Bo ar ds,1 ... Bec aus e o ft he se ns i t i ve nat ur e o ft hi s ca se , f i ct i t i ous nam esw i l l be

used t hr oug hou tt hi s opi ni on t o pr ot ect t he i denti t i es oft he vi ct i m i zed part i es. S e ePa tterso nv. S tate , 46 S . W . 3d 294, 298 n. 1 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2001, n o p e t.).

2 ... S p e c i fi c a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e d th a t b e c a u s e o f E m e n h i s e r’s em pl oym ent w i t h D I S D , he had access t o t he l ocat i on of st uden t s’ r esi dences, t hei rpar ent s’ w or k schedul es, and t hei rsi bl i ngs’ pr obab l e w her eabou t s.

3 ... A ppe l l antco nt end ed t hatD I SD en t r us t ed Em enh i se rw i t h i nf or m at i on a n d tha t D I S D h a d kn o w l e d g e o f Em e n h i se r’ s “ u n n a tu ral i n tere st i n b o th c h i l d re n a n d p o rn o g ra p h y .” 2 I nc. ( TA SB, I nc. ) an d Tex asA ss oci at i on ofSchoo l Boar dsRi skM ana gem ent F u n d (T A S BR M F ). W e a ffir m . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts A ppel l antal l eges t he fo l l ow i ng f act s. W hi l e John Paul Em enhi serw as e m p l o y e d w i th th e D e n to n In d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s tri c t (D IS D ) a s a b u sd ri v e r, he bef r i end ed and t ook pi ct ur es of youn g gi r l s as si gne d t o hi s r out e, i ncl udi ng S al l y D oe. In 2 0 0 0 , w h i l e S a l l y w a s n i n e y e a rs o l d , E m e n h i s e rs e x u a lly

1
as sa ul t ed her . I n 2001, us i ng i nf or m at i on and aut hor i t y heha d ga i ned t hr ough h i s p o s i ti o n a sS a l l y ’sb u sd ri v e r, E m e n h is e ra g a in s e x u a llya s s a u lt e d h e rw h ile 2 she w as al one i n herhom e. I n Decem ber2003 , ap pel l antf i l ed su i tag ai ns tEm enh i se r , s ee ki ng com pen sa t ory a nd e xem pl ary da m age s f orEm enh i se r ’ s as sa ul t s aga i ns tSal l y. L a ter, a p p e l l a n t am e n d e d h e r su i t t o ad d D I S D as a d e fen d a n t. O n F e b ru a ry 34 ... T A S B , I n c . i s th e p rog ram ad m i n i strato r o f T A S BR M F . W h i l e b o th

TA S B, I nc. and T A S B R M F ar e appel l ees i n t hi s appeal , t he onl y i ssue pr esent ed by a ppe l l anti s w het hert he t r i alco urter r ed by g r ant i ng TA SB R M F’ s m ot i ons f orsum m ar y j udg m ent . I n her b r i efand ator al ar gum ent , appel l antadm i t t ed t hats um m ary j udgm entw aspr ope r l y gr ant ed t o TA SB, I nc. be ca us e i tw asnot a p a rt yt o t h e in t e r lo c a l p a rt ic ip a t io n a g r e e m e n tw it h D IS D . B e c a u s e o ft h is adm i ssi on, and because ou rr evi ew oft he e vi dence con f i r m s t hatTA S B, I nc. w as no ta p a rt yt o t h e a g r e e m e n t , w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e s u m m a ryj udgm ent e n t e r e d in T A S B , I n c .’ sb e h a lf . F o rs im p lic it y , h o w e v e r , in t h iso p in io n w e w ill re fe r to T A S B , I n c . a n d T A S BR M Fc o l l e c ti v e l ya s“ a p p e l l e e s .”

5 ... A p p e l l a n t fi l e d th e su i t un d e r t h e U n i fo rm D e c l a rato ry J u d g m e n ts A c t. S ee T e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d e A n n . § § 3 7 .0 0 1

– .0 1 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). 3 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a fte r a p p e l l a n t s e ttled h e r c l a i m sa g a in s t D IS D , th e tri a l c o u rt se ver ed t hos e cl ai m s f r om he rr em ai ni ng c l ai m s aga i ns tEm enh i se r . O n Ju ne 28 , 20 07 , appel l antf i l ed hert hi r d am ended pet i t i on, w h i c h m a i nt ai ned her cl ai m s agai nstE m enhi seran d j oi ned app el l ees ( w ho pr ovi ded l i abi l i t y c ove r age 4 f orD I SD ) as def end ant s. The su i tag ai ns tap pel l ee s so ughta dec l ar at i on t hat 5 Em enh i se ri s an i ns ur ed unde rt he cov er ageap pel l ee s pr ovi ded t o DI SD i n a S e x u a lM i sc o n d u c t C l a i m sE n d o rs e m e n t t o a n in te rlo c a l p a rt ic ip a tio n a g ree m e n t; t he r ef or e, ap pel l ee s ar e o bl i gat ed t o de f end hi m an d s at i sf y a ny j udgm ent o b ta i n e d a g a i n s t h i m . In J u l y2 0 0 7 , a p p e l l e e sfi l e d th e i r a n s w e r to a p p e l l a n t’s
c l a i m s . I n N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , a p p e l l e e sfi l e d a tra d i ti o n a l m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t. Th e evi dence at t ached t o appel l ees’ m ot i on est abl i shed t hatD I S D ent er ed in t o a n in t e r lo c a l p a rt ic ip a t io n a g r e e m e n t w it h a p p e lle e s s o t h a ta p p e lle e sw o u ld4

p rov i d e co v e rag e an d a d e fen se fo r s e v e ral ty p e s o f D I S D ’s p rop e rt yo r ca su a l ty
r i sks. I n conn ect i on w i t h t he agr eem ent , appel l ees i ssued a Sex ual M i scondu ct C la im s E n d o r s e m e n tt h a to u t lin e d p a rt ic u la rs it u a t io n sin w h ic h c o v e r a g e w o u ld app l y ( up t o a $5, 000 , 000 l i m i t ) w hen D I SD ori t s em pl oye esw er e acc us ed of sexual m i scondu ctw i t h a st uden t . Th e r el evant part s of t he S exual M i scondu ct C l a i m s E n d o rse m e n t state tha t co v e rag e ap p l i e d to 1. C l ai m s m ade by oro n b ehal fofst uden t s orby em pl oyees agai nsta P r o g r a m P a rt i c i p ant[D I S D ] o ran y . . . em pl oye e . . . of su ch Pr ogr am Part i ci pant . . . ar i si ng ou tofal l egat i ons ofsexual m i sc onduc t , ha r as sm ent , m ol es t at i on orab us e; an d e xcl us i ons r el at i ve t o sexual m i scondu ct do not appl y. A l l Excl us i o n s th at w oul d ot her w i se appl y r em ai n appl i cabl e. Th i s cover age sh a l l n otappl y w hen a P rog ram P a rt i c i p a n t oran y

. . . em pl oyee . . . has al l egedl y engag ed i n any act s . . . t hat vi ol at e a ny c r i m i nall aw w her e s uch al l ege d c r i m i nalac t s . . . ha ve r es ul t ed i n t he f i l i ng orobt ai ni ng ofa cr i m i nal c ha r ge and i nf or m at i on o ri ndi ct m entag ai ns tan y P rog ram P a rt i c i p a n t oran y

. . . em pl oye e . . . ofs uch Pr ogram Part i ci pan t .

. . . . 2 . C l a i m s m a d e b yo r on b e h a lf o f s tu d e n ts . . . ag a i n st a P rog ram P a rtic ip a n t oran y . . . em pl oye e . . . ar i si ng ou tof al l egat i ons t hata P rog ram P a rt i c i p a n t . . . n e g l i g e n t l ye m pl oye d, t r ai ned , i nve st i gat ed, r epo rt ed, s upe rvi se d orr et ai ned a per so n engag ed i n sexual m i scondu ct , har assm ent , m ol est at i on, orabuse. Exc l us i onsr el at i ve t o s exu alm i sc onduc tdo notap pl y. A l l Excl usi ons t hatw oul d ot her w i se appl y r em ai n appl i cabl e. 3. C l ai m s based on any al l egat i on t hata P rog ram P a rt i c i p a n t or any . . . em pl oyee . . . engag ed i n a pr act i ce, cust om , or pol i cy t hat c o n sti tu tes a v i o l a ti o n o f a c i v i lri g h t t h a t ca u se d o r co n tr i b u ted to6 ... T h e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t ev i d e n c e es tab l i sh e d tha t a D e n to n C o u n ty

j u ry c o n v i c ted E m e n h i se r of i n d e c e n c yw i th a c h i l d , a g g rav a ted s e x u a l as sa u l t, and sexual per f or m ance by a chi l d; t he j ur y sent enced hi m t o ni net y- ni ne year s’ confi nem enton t he aggr avat ed sexual assaul tchar ge.

7 ... O t hergr oun ds forsum m ary j udg m entassert ed by appel l ees t o t he t r i al cou rt , r el at ed t o a ppe l l ant ’ s st and i ng a nd a n a l l eged stat ut ory pr ohi bi t i on of a p p e lla n t ’s s u it , h a v e b e e n a b a n d o n e d o n a p p e a l. 5 a cl ai m ofsexual m i scondu ct . Excl usi ons r el ati v e to sexual m i scondu ctdo not appl y. A l l E x c l u si ons t hatw oul d ot her w i se appl y r em ai n appl i cabl e. Based o n t he l angu age oft he endo r sem ent , appel l ees’ m ot i on con t ended t hatt hey had n o obl i gat i on t o def end Em enhi serbecause he engag ed i n cr i m i nal act s f orw hi ch t he pol i cy excl uded cover age. The m ot i on al so cont ended t hat 6 app el l ee s w er e e nt i t l ed t o cont r ac t uali nde m ni t y f r om ap pel l antba se d on l a n g u a g e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n tb e t we e n a p p e l l a n ta n d DI S D. 7 T h e se ttl e m e n t ag ree m e n t ( ti tl e d as a “ C o m p rom i se S e ttl e m e n t A g ree m e n t, R e l e a se o f A l l C l a i m s a n d I n d e m n i ty A g ree m e n t”) state d tha t

• th e “ i n c i d e n ts m a d e th e b a s i s ” o f th e l a w s u i t w e re E m e n h i s e r’s as sa ul t s ofSal l y;

• t he “Rel easi ng P art i es” com p ri sed appel l ant( i ndi vi dual l y and as S a l l y ’sn e x t fri e n d );

• t h e “ Re l e a s e d P a rt i e s ” w e r e DI SD a n d i t s “ e m p l o y e e s and r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s , e x c e p tt h a t[E m e n h is e rw a s ] s p e c if ic a lly excl uded ”;

• a p p e l l a n t d i s c h a rg e d th e R e l e a s e d P a rti e sfro m a l l p re s e n t o r fu tu re cl ai m s r el at ed t o a l l i nj ur i es“ di r ec t l y ori ndi r ec t l y a t t r i but abl e t o t he8 ... The f ul l co nt ent s oft hi s se ct i on a r e s etf ort h be l ow . 6 i nci den tm adet he bas i s” o ft he l aw su i t , “ w het heras se rt ed i n t he l aw sui tornot ”;

• th e rel e a se ap p l i e d to a ll “ firm s, co rpo rati o n s, [ o r] en ti ti e s w i th w hom [ D I S D has] been, [ i s] now , orm ay her eaft erbe af f i l i at ed”;

• i n e x c h a n g e fo r th e re l e a s e a n d s e ttlem e n t o f“ d is p u te d c l a i m s ,” app el l ees agr ee d t o pa y a ppe l l antan d Sal l y a s ubs t ant i als um of m oney o verm any year s. T h e s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n t a l s o c o n ta i n e d a s e c ti o n ti tl e d “I N D EM N I FI C A T I O N .” 8 O n the d a ythe yfi l e d the i r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o ti o n ag a i n st a p p e l l a n t, a p p e lle e s a m e n d e d t h e ira n s w e rt o a s s e rt(1 ) t h e d e f e n s e sin c lu d e d in t h e ir
m o ti o n , (2 ) a c o u n te rc l a i m fo r a d e c l a ra to ryj u d g m e n t (a l o n g w i th a tto rn e y ’s f ee s and cos t s) aga i ns t app el l ant bas ed on t he i nde m ni f i ca t i on l ang uag e i n t he
se t t l em entag r ee m ent , an d ( 3) a cr os s- cl ai m agai ns tEm enh i se rf ora dec l ar at i on t hathe w a s not i nsur ed und ert he i nt er l ocal part i ci pat i on agr eem entbet w een app el l ee s and D I SD . A ppe l l antf i l ed a r es pons e t o a ppe l l ee s’ s um m ary j udgm ent
m ot i on, ar gui ng t hatth e c l ai m s agai nstEm enhi serw er e cover ed und er par agr aph s t w o a nd t hr ee oft he Sexua l M i sc onduc tCl ai m s Endor se m entan d t hatt he i ndem ni f i cat i on cl ause oft he sett l em entagr e e m e n t w i t h D I S D w as a m b i g u o u s , d i d n o t a p p l yto p e rs o n a l i n j u ryc l a i m sb e c a u s e s u c h c l a i m sw e re9 ... A p p e l l a n t co n ten d s th a t ap p e l l e e s d i d n o t pre v a i l o n the i r i n d e m n i ty

coun t er cl ai m thr oug h sum m ar y j udg m entb ecause i n i t s f i nal j udg m ent , t he t r i al c o u rtd e n i e d ap p e l l e e s’ clai m for a ttorn e y ’s fee s. H o w e v e r, th e rec o rd re fl e c ts t hatt he t r i al courtg r ant ed t he m ot i on f orsum m ary j udg m entt hatcont ai ned ar gum ents regar di ng app el l ees’ i ndem ni t y coun t er cl ai m . A nd t hou gh t he t r i al courtdi d not speci f y t hati tg r ant ed sum m ary j udg m ento n t he i ndem ni t y basi s, w hen a t r i alco urtgr ant s a g ene r als um m ary j udgm ent , w e m us taf f i r m t he j u d g m e n t i f a n yo f th e th e o ri e st h a tt h e p re v a i l i n g p a rtya d v a n c e d a t tri a l a re m e ri to ri o u s . S ee Mor r i s v. JTMMater

i al s, I nc. , 78 S. W . 3d 28, 36 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.).

10 ... A p p e lle e sa t t a c h e d t h e s a m e s u m m a ryju d g m e n te v id e n c e t o t h is m ot i on a s t o t hei rpr evi ouss um m ary j udgm entm ot i on. 7 not speci f i cal l y del i neat ed, and coul d not appl y t o S al l y because appel l anthad
n o a u th o ri tyto e n te r i n to s u c h a s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n t o n S a l l y ’sb e h a l f. A f t erappel l ees f i l ed a r epl y t o appel l ant ’ s sum m ary j udg m entr esponse, t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed app el l ee s’ m ot i on. Appel l ee s t hen f i l ed a m ot i on f or 9
su m m ary j udgm ent as t o t hei rcr os s- cl ai m ag ai ns tEm enh i se r( w ho ha d f i l ed a p ro s e a n s w e r to th a t c l a i m ); t he t r i alco urtgr ant ed t hi s m ot i on asw el l , an d 10 i tor der ed t hatt he cov er agedocum enti ss ued by TA SB R M F t o DI SD “ doe s not pr ovi de anyco ver agef ort he cl ai m s as se rt ed aga i ns t[ Em enh i se r ] by [ appel l ant ] . ” I n M ay 20 08 , appel l antobt ai ned a j udg m entagai nstEm enhi ser fo r $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . A p p e l l a n t th e n f i l e d n o ti c e o f h e r a p p e a l o f th e tri a l c o u rt’s deci si on t o gr antbot h ofappel l ees’ sum m ary j udg m entm ot i ons.8 The Propr i ety oft he Sum m ary Ju dgm ent In h e rs o le is s u e , a p p e lla n tc o n t e n d st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtim p r o p e r ly gr ant ed appel l ees’ m ot i ons f orsum m ary j udg m ent . S he ar gues t hatt he S exual M i sc on duc tCl ai m s Endor se m entr equ i r esap pel l ee s t o pr ovi de cov er agef or Em enh i se rand t hathe rcl ai m s aga i ns tap pel l ee s ar e n otex cl ude d byt he i n d e m n i ty p rov i sion s o f t h e se ttl e m e n t ag ree m e n t. S t andar d ofr evi ew I n a s um m ary j udgm entca se , t he i ss ue on a ppe al i s w het hert he m ova nt
m ett he su m m ary j udgm entbur den by es t abl i sh i ng t hatno g enu i ne i ss ue of
m at er i al f ac tex i st s and t hatt he m ova nti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entasa m att erof l a w . T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); Sw. Elec . Power C o. v. Grant, 73 S. W . 3d 211, 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); City of Hous ton v. Clea r Creek Ba si

n Auth. , 589 S. W . 2d 671, 678 ( Tex. 1979 ) . T he bur den ofpr oofi s on t he m ova nt , an d a l l doub t s abo ut t he exi st enc e o fa gen ui ne i ss ue ofm at er i alf ac tarer es ol ved ag ai ns tt he
m o v a n t. See Sw. Elec . Power Co. , 73 S . W . 3d a t215. S um m aryj udgm entev i den cet hatf avo r s t he m ova nt ’ s pos i t i on w i l l not b e c o n s i d e re d u n l e s si t i su n c o n tro v e rte d . GreatA m . Reserve I ns. C o. v. San A ntoni o Pl um bi ng Supply Co. , 3 9 1 S . W . 2 d 4 1 , 4 7 ( T e x . 1 9 6 5 ) . H o we v e r , we m u s tc o n s id e rw h e t h e rre a s o n a b le a n d f a ir -m in d e d ju r o r sc o u ld d if f e rin t h e ir
c o n c l u s i o n si n l i g h t o f a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e p re s e n te d . S ee W al
-MartStores, I

nc.9

v. Sp ates , 1 8 6 S .W .3 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ); Cityo f Kel ler v. W i l so n , 168 S . W . 3d 80 2, 82 2– 24 ( Tex . 20 05 ) . Sum m ary j udg m ent i s pr operw hen part i es d o n o t d i s p u te th e re l e v a n t fa c ts . Ha vlenv. Mc D o uga ll, 22 S. W . 3d 343, 345 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ). The c r it er i a o fco nt r ac ti nt er pr et at i on Th e part i es do notdi sput e evi denti ary f act s r el at ed t o t he S exual M i scondu ctC l ai m s Endor sem entort he settl em entagr eem ent ; r at her , t hey di f f eri n t hei ri nt er pr et at i on ofthe se do cum ent s. I ns ur anc e p ol i ci esan d sett l em ent agr eem ent s ar e both contr act s, and s uch docum ent s ar e gover ned b y th e s a m e ru l e s o f c o n s tru c ti o n a p p l i c a b l e to a l l c o n tra c ts . S ee Gray v. Nash , 2 5 9 S .W .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 8 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ); Saf eco I ns. Co . o f A m . v. Ga ub ert, 8 2 9 S .W .2 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— D a lla s1 9 9 2 , w r it d e n ie d ); see al

so Webb v. Lawson-A vi l a Constr. , I

nc. , 9 1 1 S . W . 2 d 4 5 7 , 461 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 5 , w ri t d i sm ’d) ( n o ti n g , h o w e v e r, tha t i n d e m n i ty a g re e m e n ts a re s tri c tl yc o n s tru e d i n fa v o r o f th e i n d e m n i to r). W h e n c o n s t r u in g a w r it t e n c o n t r a c t , o u rp r im a ryc o n c e r n ist o a s c e rt a in t he t r ue i nt entoft he pa rt i esasex pr es se d i n t he i ns t r um ent . NP A nder son Cotton Ex ch ., L .P. v. Potter, 2 3 0 S .W .3 d 4 5 7 , 4 6 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); se e Republ i c Nat ’ l Bankof

D al l asv. Nat ’

l Banker s Lif e I ns . Co. , 427 S. W . 2d 76, 79–8 0 ( Tex. Ci v. A pp. — D al l as1968 , w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) ( not i ng10

t hatco urt s sh oul d notcons i dert he “i nt ent i on w hi ch t he part i esm ay hav e h ad, butf ai l ed t o e xpr es s i n t he i ns t r um ent ”) . I n doi ng s o, w e m us tex am i ne and
c o n s id e rt h e e n t ir e c o n t r a c tin a n e f f o rtt o h a r m o n iz e a n d g i v e e f f e c tt o a ll p ro v i s i o n ss o th a t n o n e a re re n d e re d m e a n i n g l e s s . Potter, 230 S. W . 3d a t463; see J. M. D avidson, I nc. v. Webster, 1 2 8 S .W .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ). C o n tra c tu a l p ro v i s i o n ss h o u ld b e c o n s i d e re d w i th re fe re n c e to th e e n ti re i n s tru m e n t; n o s i n g l e p ro v i s i o n s h o u l d c o n tro l . Webster, 128 S. W . 3d a t229; Potter, 230 S . W . 3d at463. W or ds i n a co nt r ac tm us tca r ry t hei ror di nary, g e n e ra l l ya c c e p te d m e a n i n g u n l e s sth e c o n tra c t i ts e l f s h o w sth a t th e te rm s have been used i n a t echni cal ordi f f er entsense. See Ram sa y v. Md. A m . G en. I ns . Co. , 53 3 S . W . 2d 34 4, 34 6 ( Tex . 19 76 ) . I n const r ui ng a contr act , w e m ay no t r ew r i t e i t no r ad d t o i t s l a n g u a g e . A m . Mf r s. Mut. I

ns. Co. v. Sch aef

er, 124 S. W . 3d 154, 162 ( Tex. 2003 ) . Al so , w e m us tw ei gh tha tpa rt i est o a contr act a re c o n side red m a ste rs o f t h e i r ow n ch o i c e s. T h e yare en ti tl e d to s e l e c t w h a t te rm sa n d p ro v i s i o n s t o i n c l u d e i n a c o n tra c t b e fo re exe cut i ng i t . And, i n s o c hoos i ng, ea ch i s ent i t l ed t o r el y up on t he w or ds sel ect ed t o dem ar cat e t hei r r espect i ve obl i gat i ons and r i ghts . In s h o rt , t h e p a rt ie s s t r ik e t h e d e a l they choo se t o st r i ke and, t hus, v o l u n ta ri l yb i n d th e m s e l v e si n th e m a n n e r they choo se. Cross Ti m ber s Oi l Co. v. Exxon Cor

p. , 2 2 S .W .3 d 2 4 , 2 6 ( T e x . A p p .— A m a r illo 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.).11

A c o n t r a c tis u n a m b ig u o u sifitc a n b e g iv e n a d e f in it e le g a l m e a n in g ; ifit i s su bj ec tt o t w o orm or e r ea so nab l e i nt er pr et at i ons , i ti s am bi guous , cr ea t i ng a fa c t i s s u e o n th e p a rti e s ’ i n te n t. Webster, 128 S. W . 3d at229; Lopezv. Munoz, Hockem a & Ree d, L. L. P. , 2 2 S .W .3 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ). H ow ever , l ack ofcl ar i t y does not necessar i l y cr eat e an am bi gui t y, and nei t her does a m er e di sagr eem entbet w een t he part i es. S e e Universa l Hea lthServs ., I n c . v. Ren a i

ssa n c eWo men ’

sGro up, P. A. , 121 S. W . 3d 742, 746 ( Te x. 2003 ) ( addi ng t hatw het her “a contr act i s am bi guo us i s a quest i on of l aw t hatm ust be deci ded byexam i ni ng t he contr actas a w hol e i n l i ght oft he ci r cum st ances prese nt w he n the co ntr ac tw as e ntered”); s e ea l s o Cityo f

T h eCo lo n yv. N. Tex . Mun . W

a ter Di st. , 272 S. W . 3d 699, 722 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2008,
no pet . h . ) ( expl ai ni ng t hatw hen “t he m eani ng of a cont r acti s unam bi guo us, a part y’ s con st r uct i on i s i m m at er i al ”) . W hen a con t r ac tco nt ai nsan am bi gui t y, t he gr ant i ng ofa m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm enti s i m pr ope rbe ca us e t he i n te rp re ta ti o n o f th e i n s t r u m e n t b e c o m e sa fa c t i s s u e . Coker v. Coker, 650 S . W . 2d 39 1, 39 4 ( Tex . 1 9 83 ) . C onvers el y, t he i nt er pr et at i on of an u n a m b i g u o u s c o n tr a c t i s a m a tt e r o f l a w to b e d e term i n e d b ythe tr i a l co u rt . G ulf I ns . Co. v. Bur

nsMotor

s, I nc ., 2 2 S .W .3 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ).12

A n a ly s is W e m us ts t r i ct l y c ons t r ue t he part i es ’ s ett l em entag r ee m enti n f avo rof appel l antusi ng t he nor m al r ul e s o f c o nt r acti nt er pr et at i on detai l ed abov e. S eei d. ; Webb , 91 1 S. W . 2d at 46 1. Th e sett l em ent agr eem ent i n d i sp u te sta ted , i n p e rt i n e n t pa rt , 3. 01 I ti s exp r es sl y un der st ood a nd a gr ee d t hat t he R el ea si ng P a rti e sh a v e p a i d . . . a l l e x p e n s e s. . . o f a n yk i d [sic ] o r c h a ra c te r, pas t , pr es entan d f ut ur e, al l eg ed to bei ncu r r ed asa r es ul toft he

. . . i nci den t s m adet he bas i s oft hi s l aw su i t . . . and t he Rel ea si ng Part i eshe r ebyag r eet o i nde m ni f y, de f end , an d hol d har m l es s t he R el eased Part i es and T A S B R M F f r om an y and al lcl ai m s orcauses ofact i o n f ort he r ecovery ofany expen ses. . . . Such i nde m ni f i ca t i on s hal l i ncl ud e, buti s notl i m i t ed t o, cl ai m s ar i si ng f r om . . . an y pa rt i alorsol e i nt ent i ona l ornegl i gen tactorom i ss i on o f a n yo ral l oft he R el eased Part i es a n d T A S BR MF , and f urt her i n c l udes t he cost s ofdef endi ng agai nstsuch cl ai m s . . . . Such ri g h t o f i n d e m n it y. . . shal lexi sti n f avoroft he R el eased Part i es and TA SB R M F . . . . 3 .0 2 F o r th e c o n s id e r a ti o n s e t fo rth a b o v e , t he R el easi ng P art i es h e reb yag ree to fu l l yi n d e m n i fy , de f end an d hol d ha r m l es s ea ch of t he R el eased Part i es and TA SB R M F fr o m a n ya n d a l l c l a i m s. . . and ca us esofac t i on ofw hat so eve rna t ur e or cha r ac t er , atl aw or i n equi t y, past , pr esent , orf ut ur e, w hi ch m ay have been orw hi ch m a y he r e a f t erbe ass ert ed by a ny p erso n , f i r m , co r por at i on, or o th e r e n ti tyw h o m s o e v e r c l a i m i n g b y , th ro u g h , o r on be hal foft he R e le a s in g P a rt ie s , a r is in g f r o m t h ein c id e n t m a d e t h eb a s iso ft h is la w s u it . Such i nde m ni f i ca t i on s hal l i ncl udebuti s notl i m i t ed t o, cl ai m s ar i si ng f r om , oram ount s r ec ove r ed bas ed on c l ai m s ar i si ng outofan y . . . ne gl i gen tac torom i ss i on ofan y oral l oft he R el eased Part i es and TA SB R M F . . . . [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .]13

A ppel l antcont ends t hat t hou gh TA S B RM F i s speci f i cal l y desi gnated as
a p a rt yto e n j o yi n d e m n i ty, this l a n g u a g e d o e s n o t re q u i re h e r ( o r S a l l y ) to i ndem ni f y and ho l d har m l ess T A S B R M F as t o t he cl ai m s she as sert ed agai nst Em enh i se rbe ca us e ( 1) ap pel l ee s ar e n otam ong t he “Re l ea se d Pa rt i es ” i n t he
se ttl e m e n t ag ree m e n t an d the re fo re th e yd o n o t ha v e sta n d i n g to e n fo rce i t; (2 ) t h e la n g u a g e isa m b ig u o u sin t h a titr e f e r st o t h e “ in c id e n t ” m a d e t h e b a s is ofherl aw sui t , w hi l e herl aw su i t d e sc r i bed m or e t han on e assaul tand l egal t h e o r ie s o t h e rt h a n a s s a u l t ; (3 ) t h e la n g u a g e s p e c if ic a llye x c lu d e st h e c la im s agai nst Em enhi ser f r om t hose r el eased, and i tdoes notappl y t o S al l y’ s di r ect cl ai m s; ( 4) t he l ang uag e d oesnoten com pas s per so nali nj ury c l ai m s; an d ( 5) Ja ne D oe doe s not hav e aut hor i t y t o e nt eran y s ett l em entori nde m ni f i ca t i on agr ee m entt hatw oul d bi nd Sal l y. A ppe l l ee s hav e st and i ng t o e nf or cet he i nde m nity provi si on I n h e r r e p l yb ri e f, ap p e l l a n t co n ten d s th a t be c a u se T A S BR M Fw a s n o t a si gni ng pa rt y t o t he se t t l em entag r ee m ent , i tha s no s t and i ng t o e nf or cet he i n d e m n i ty p rovi si on con t ai ned i n i t . A t hi r d part y m ay r ecoveron a contr act
m ade bet w een ot herpart i es i f t he part i es i nt ended t o secur e a benefi t t o t hat th i rd p a rty a n d th e p a rti e se n te re d i n to th e c o n tra c t d i re c tl yfo r th e th i rd p a rty ’s b e n e fi t. S ti

n ev. S te wa rt, 8 0 S .W .3 d 5 8 6 , 5 8 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); see S. Tex. W ater A uth. v. Lom as , 2 2 3 S .W .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ); Hai re v. NathanW

atson14

Co. , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 2 9 3 , 3 0 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ). T o q u a l i fy
a s a n i n te n d e d th i rd -p a rtyb e n e fi c i a ry , a p a rtym a ys h o w th a t i t i sa ” c re d i to r” b e n e fi c i a ry o f th e c o n tra c t. Sti ne , 8 0 S .W .3 d a t 5 8 9 . A n ag ree m e n t be n e fi ts a “ c r e d it o r ” b e n e f ic ia ryif , u n d e rt h e a g r e e m e n t , p e r f o r m a n c e w ill c o m e t o h im in s a t is f a c t io n o fa le g a l d u t y(s u c h a sa c o n t r a c t u a l o b lig a t io n o ro t h e rle g a lly
e n fo rc e a b l e c o m m i tm e n t). Id. A t hi r d- part y be nef i ci ary do esnotha ve t o s how t hatt he si gnator i es exe c u ted the cont r actsol el y t o benefi ti tas a n o n c o n tra c ti n g p a rty . Id. a t591. W e concl ude t hatt he sett l em entagr ee m entsi gnal s t he si gnator i es’ in t e n t io n t o c o n f e ra b e n e f ito n T A S BR M Fa sa c r e d it o rb e n e f ic ia ryb e c a u s e it ( 1) s pec i f i ca l l y s t at est hatTA SB R M F s hal l bei nde m ni f i ed al ong w i t h t he R el eased Part i es, ( 2) i ndi cat es ( as r eci t ed i n sect i on 3 . 02 oft he agr eem ent ) t hat
su ch a des i gna t i on w as con f er r ed bec aus e TAS B RM F pr ovi ded co ns i der at i on by p ayi ng s ubs t ant i al su m s t o a ppe l l ant( asac kno w l edg ed r ec ei ved by app el l ant i n s e c ti o n 1 .0 4 ), a n d (3 ) p a rt i c u l a rl ym e n ti o n s T A S BR M Fi n se v e ral o th e r pa rt s oft he agr ee m entan d obl i ga t es T A SB R M F t o a bi de by s eve r aloft he agr ee m ent ’ s t er m s, i ncl udi ng p ay m en t s al r ea dy m adean d t o bem adei n t he fu tu re . See Sti

ne , 8 0 S .W .3 d a t 5 8 9

– 9 1 ; se e al soMar i ne Creek Partner

s, Ltd.
v. Ca ld well, 9 2 6 S .W .2 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 5 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 6 , n o w ri t) ( exp l ai ni ng t hats t at usasa t hi r d- part y be nef i ci ary m ay be cr ea t ed w hen t he11 ... Though nota si gna t ory, TA SB R M F i s a n am ed part y t o t he

a g r e e me n tb e c a us e i ti ss p e c i f i c a l l yi n c l u d e d i n t h e “ R E CI T AL S AN D D EFI N I TI O N S” po rt i on oft he agr ee m ent . W e n ot e t han an ar gum entco ul d be m adet hatTA SB R M F w asal so a Rel ea se d Part y i n t he se t t l em entag r ee m ent because t hr oug h par agr aph 1 . 02 , t he r el ease appl i ed t o al l “f i r m s, cor por at i ons, a n d e n ti ti e sw i th w h o m th e R e l e a s e d P a rti e s. . . a re n o w . . . a ffil i a te d .” H ow ever , w e need not r esol ve t hi s appeal on t hatbasi s. 15 “obl i gat i on t o t he t hi r d part y i s cl ear l y and f ul l y spel l ed o u t”). Becau se w e concl ude t hatt he sett l em entagr eem entconf er r ed st andi ng o n T A S B R M F as a t hi r d- part y bene f i ci ary t o t he agr ee m ent , w e h ol d t hatTA SB R M F’ s exc l us i on a s a s i g n a to ry to th e a g re e m e n t is in c o n s e q u e n ti a l . See City of A lton v. 11 Sharyl and Water Supply Cor

p. , 145 S . W . 3d 673, 682 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pus C hr i st i20 04 , no pet . ) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[ t ] hi r d- part y benefi ci ar i es t o a cont r act ac qui r e t he sa m e r i ght s and s t and i ng t o enf or ce t he con t r ac tast hos e h el d by one of t he contr act i ng part i es”) . T hus, sum m ary j udg m entw as notpr ecl uded on t hi s gr ound. The s ett l em entag r ee m enti s notam bi guous N ext , w e c ann otag r eew i t h appel l antt hatt he i nde m ni t y pr ovi si onsi n t he
se t t l em entag r ee m entar e a m bi gu ousbe ca us e p ar agr aph 3. 02 r ef er r ed t o t he

“ in c id e n tm a d e t h e b a s is o ft h isla w s u it ” w h ile h e rp le a d in g o n f ile a tt h e t im e oft he agr eem ental l ege d m u l ti pl e assaul t s and var i ous l egal t heor i es. The r ec i t al s port i on oft he se t t l em entag r ee m ent( par agr aph A ) di ct at est hatt he12 ... I n an at t em ptt o l i m i tt he br ea dt h ofs ec t i on 3. 02 so t hati tw oul d not

coverherassaul tcl ai m s agai nstEm enhi ser , appel l antcont ends i n herbr i eft hat “re a so n a b l e m i n d s co u l d d e term i n e th a t ‘t h e i n c i d e n t’ refe ren c e d th e civi l ri g h ts vi ol at i onsw hi ch st em m ed f r om [ D I S D ’ s] f ai l ur e t o pr ot ec t[ a] ppe l l antf r om se xua l ha r as sm ent . ” H ow eve r , t hi s as se rt i on i s bel i ed by t he l an guage con t ai ned ea r l i eri n sec t i on 3. 02 i ndi ca t i ng t hati nde m ni t y appl i ed t o “ ca us esof a c ti o n o f w h a ts o e v e r n a tu re o r c h a ra c te r.” 16 “ i n c i d e n ts m a d e th e b a s i so f th i sl a w s u i t” a re th e “ a s s a u l t so f [S a l l yD o e ], a
m i n o r. ” A p a rtf ro m p l u ral i zi n g “i n c i d e n t, ” th i s e x a c t l a n g u a g e i s u se d to de s c r i bet hei nd e m ni f i e d c l a i m si n s e c t i on 3. 02. W e conc l udeand hol d t hatt he agr ee m enti s notam bi guous . The st r i ki ng si m i l ar i t y i s su f f i ci entt o s how t he part i es ’ i nt entasex pr es se d i n t he i ns t r um ent t o i ncl ude i n sect i on 3 . 02 al l cl ai m s f r om any ofEm enhi ser ’ s ass aul t s agai nst Sal l y, r at hert han oneas sa ul tort he ot heran d r at her t han so m e cl ai m s butnot ot her s. T h u s , w e c o n c l u d e th a t th e s i n g u l a r te rm “ i n c i d e n t” w a sn o th i n g m o re

12 th a n a ty p o g ra p h i c a l e rro r. See Bat j et , I nc. v. Ja ckson , 161 S. W . 3d 242, 247 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rka n a 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t. ) (ho l d i n g th a t th e u se o f t h e w o rd “ c l i e n t” i ns t ea d of“ cl i ent s”i n a r ul e 11 ag r ee m entl ett erw asnotdi sp os i t i ve oft he i n te n ti o n th a t m u l ti p l e d e fe n d a n ts b e b o u n d to a s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n t); City
o f Ga lves to n v. Ga lves to n Mun . Po l ic eA ss ’n , 57 S. W . 3d 532, 539 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 01 , pet . deni ed) ( noti ng t hatt ypog r aphi cal
m is t a k e s m u s t“ y ie ld t o t h e w e ll-e s t a b lis h e d d o c t r in e t h a tw r it t e n c o n t r a c t sw ill17

b e c o n s tru e d a c c o rd i n g to th e i n te n ti o n o f th e p a rti e s , n o tw i th s ta n d i n g e rro rs a n d o m i s s i o n s , b yp e ru s i n g th e e n ti re d o c u m e n t” ). O urco ncl us i on i s st r en gthened by t he f ac tt hats ec t i on 1. 01 oft he
s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n t( u n d e r a p o rt i o n o ft h ea g r e e me n tt i t l e d “ R E L E AS E AN D D IS C H A R G E ” ) a ls o re f e r st o t h e s in g u la r“ in c id e n tm a d e t h e b a s iso ft h is l a w su i t” w h e n d e sc ri b i n g th e c l a i m s rel e a se d in fav o r o f D I S D . I f w e w e re to h o l d tha t “i n c i d e n t” m a d e se c ti o n 3 .0 1 a m b ig u o u s , w e w o u l d also h a v e to concl ude t hatt he sam e t er m i s am bi guo us i n sect i on 1 . 01 . W e cannot do so b e c a u se w e ca n n o t co n c lu d e t h a t r e a so n a b l e m i n d s w o u l d d i sa g ree as to
w het her , i n a docum entpart l y t i t l ed “RE LEA S E O F A LL C LA I M S , ” t he part i es i n ten d e d to d i sc h a rge D I S D fr o m clai m s a ri sing fr o m b o th o f t h e se x u a l as sa u l ts o r o n l yo n e o f th e tw o . S ee Webster, 128 S. W . 3d a t229. Fort hes e r ea so ns , w e r ej ec tap pel l an t ’ s ar gum entt hatt he se t t l em ent agr ee m enti s am bi guousbe ca us e i tr ef er s t o t he “i nc i de nt” r at hert han t he “i nci den t s”m adet he bas i s ofherl aw su i t . Thus , s um m ary j udgm entw asnot pr ohi bi t ed on t hi s gr ound.13 ... Fori ns t anc e, t he se t t l em entag r ee m ents t at ed t hati n “ con si der at i on

f ort he pay m ent s des cr i bed he r ei n, t he Rel ea si ng Pa rt i eshe r ebyr el ea se. . . t he R e l e a s e d P a rt i e s , S AVE AN D E XC E P TTHO S E CL AI M S AGAI NS TJ OHN P AUL E M E N H IS E R , f r o m a n ya n d a ll c la im s. . . . ” A n o t h e rp r o v is io n s p e c if ic a lly e x c l u d e d E m e n h i s e r fro m th e “ R e l e a s e d P a rti e s .” 18 W hi l e t he se tt l em entag r ee m entex cl ude s Em enh i se rf r om t hos e rel ea se d, iti ncl udes appel l ees as t hose i ndem ni f i ed;al so,i tap pl i es t o S al l y’ s di r ect cl ai m s,ifan y A ppel l antn extco nt ends t hatb ecause the set t l em entagr eem entexcl uded Em enhi seras a r el e ased part y i n t hr ee ofi t s pr ovi si ons, ap pel l antco ul d not 13 hav e i nt end ed t o i nde m ni f y app el l ee s f ort he cl ai m s aga i ns thi m . Spec i f i ca l l y, appel l antcont ends t hatt her e
w o u ld b e n o re a s o n t o e x c lu d e M r . E m e n h is e rf r o m t h e re le a s e in t hr ee separa te p rovi si ons i ft he part i es i nt ended t o bar[ S al l y’ s] c l a i m s ag a i n st E m e n h i se r b e c a u se h e r m o th e r ag ree d to i n d e m n i fy t he sc hooldi st r i ctan d TA SB R M F f or the m . Ther e w oul d beno re a s o n to i n d e m n i fyT A S B R M Ffo r [a ]p p e l l a n t’sc l a i m sa g a i n s t M r. Em enh i se rbutnotr el ea seTA SB R M F. H ow eve r , Em enh i se r ’ s exc l us i on i n t hos e t hr eepr ovi si ons i s notm ade
su r pl us ageby t he i nde m ni t y l ang uag e, asappel l anti m pl i es , be ca us e t hough t he la n g u a g e g r a n t sa p p e lle e sin d e m n it yf o rs u c h c la im s , itd o e sn o tb a rt h e c la im s t hatappel l antcont i nued t o pur sue agai nst Em enhi ser hi m sel f . I n ot herw or ds, t he se t t l em ent agr ee m ent al l ow ed app el l ant t o obt ai n her$5, 000 , 000 j udgm ent agai nstEm enhi se r, butt he i ndem ni t y pr ovi si on pr ecl uded appel l ees’
r es pons i bi l i t y t o pa y t hat t hi r d- part y j udgm ent . W e do not bel i eve t hats ec t i on19

3. 02 ( as setfort h above) co ul d r easonabl y be i nt er pr et ed di f f er ent l y, because i tgr ant ed TA SB R M F i nde m ni t y f oral l cl ai m s br oughtby ort hr ough app el l ant th a t a ro s e o u t o f E m e n h i s e r’sa s s a u l ts . S ee Webster, 128 S. W . 3d a t229. F u rt h e r, T A S BR M F ’s i n c l u sion as a n i n d e m n i fi e d p a rt y b u t no t a R e l e a se d P a rt y m a k e s se n se b e c a u se a t th e ti m e th e p a rt i e s si g n e d th e se ttl e m e n t ag ree m e n t, TASB RM F ha d no ty e tb e e n s ue d bya pp e l l a nt ; a pp e l l a ntw a i t e d t o s ueTASB RM F un t i l af t ershe si gne d t he se t t l em entagr ee m entan d r ec ei ved m one y f r om TA SB R M F. A ppe l l antal so co nt ends t hatt he i nde m ni t y l ang uag e i n t he se t t l em ent a g re e m e n t c a n n o tb e i n te rp re te d to a p p l yto c l a i m si n w h i c h “ S a l l yD o e , a m i nor , ha d a di r ec t( notde r i vat i ve) cl ai m ” aga i ns tE m en hi se r . How eve r , t he l a n g u a g e c o n ta i n sn o l i m i ta ti o n re g a rd i n g e i th e r th e d i re c t o r d e ri v a ti v e n a tu re ofSal l y’ s cl ai m s; r at her , i tap pl i est o al l cl ai m s br oughtby, t hr ough, oron beh al fofap pel l anti ndi vi dua l l y orasSal l y’ s nex tf r i end . F o r th e s e re a s o n s , w e c a n n o t a g re e w i th a p p e l l a n t th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s
sum m ar y j udg m entw as i m pr operon t hese bases. Th e i ndem ni ty agr eem entencom passes t he assaul tcl ai m s agai nst Em enhi ser Appe l l a nta l s o a s s e rt st ha tt hei nd e m ni t y l a ng ua gei n f a vo ro fTASB RM F d o e s n o t co v e r t h e clai m s a g a i n st E m e n h i se r be c a u se the l a n g u a g e fai l s to20

exp r es sl y m ent i on pe r so nali nj ur i es . I n s upportoft hi s con t ent i on, ap pel l ant
r el i eson Ard v. Gem i ni E xp lo ra tion Co. , 894 S . W . 2d 11, 15 ( Tex. A pp. — H ou st on [ 14t h Di st . ] 1994 , w r i tde ni ed) . I n A rd, t he courtexam i ned i n d e m n i ty l a n g u a g e w h i c h sta ted i n p a rt , I n dem nity . Cont r ac t or[ RRS ] ag r ee s t o i nde m ni f y a nd ho l d t he C om pany [ R esol ve] , i ncl udi ng i t s af f i l i at es, di r ect or s, o ffi cer s, sh ar eho l der s, em pl oye es , su cc es so r s and as si gns( col l ec t i vel y, t he “C om pany I ndem ni f i ed Part i es”) , har m l ess f r om al l sui t s, ac ti o n s, d e m a n d s , d a m a g e s , c o s t s , e x p e n s e s , o r c l a i m so r a n yc h a ra c te r, ty p e o r d e s c ri p ti o n , i n c l u d i n g th e e x p e n s e so fli ti g a ti o n , c o u rt c o s ts , a n d re a s o n a b l e a tt o r n e yfe e sb ro u g h t o r m a d e fo r o r on ac countof

the empl

oym ent rel ati onshi p b e tw e e n co n tr a c to r an d i ts em pl oyees, i ncl udi ng, w i t hou tl i m i t at i on, al l sui t s, act i ons, cl ai m s, d e m a n d s , d a m a g e s , c o s ts , o r e x p e n s e sb ro u g h t b yc o n tra c t o r’s em pl oye esunde rt he app l i ca bl e w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on s t at ut e a nd ot hercl ai m s by i t s per so nne l f orvi ol at i on ofci vi l r i ght s, hi r i ng pr ac t i ce s and o th er

emp lo ymen tl

a ws . Id. at14 ( em phasi s added ) . Th e court hel d t hat t he “f ai l ur e t o speci f i cal l y l i st p e rs o n a l in j u rya sa c o v e re d c l a i m p re c l u d e [d ] i n d e m n i tyfo r th e p e rs o n a l i n j u ry cl ai m . ” Id. a t15. H ow eve r , t he i nde m ni t y pr ovi si on i n t hi s ca sei s di st i ngui sh abl e f r om t he
onei n A rd . I n A rd, t he pr ovi si on l i m i t ed i t se l f t o c l ai m s bas ed on e m pl oym ent
m att er s ( asem pha si z ed abo ve ) . Sect i on 3. 02 oft he se t t l em entag r ee m ent contai ns no s uch l i m i t at i on; r at her , t he i ndem ni t y pr ovi si ons ext end t o “causes ofac t i on ofw hat soeverna t ur e o rch ar ac t er . ” M or eov er , s ec t i on 2. 02 oft he21

se ttl em ent agr eem ent st at es t hat t he r equi r ed paym ent s of TA S B RM F to appel l ant“const i t ut e dam ages on accoun tofper sonal physi cal i nj ur i es. ” F u rt h e r , b yq u a lif y in g it sre la t io n t o t h e “ in c id e n t m a d e t h e b a s iso ft h is l aw su i t , ” a p hr as e ( ap artf r om s i ngul art ens e) de f i ned i n t he t er m s oft he
se t t l em entag r ee m entt o s pec i f i ca l l y m ea n t he “a ss aul t s of[ Sal l y] , ” se ct i on 3. 02 di r ec t l y c onne ct s t o t he s ol e l ega l t heo ry— as sa ul t
— t o w hi ch app el l ant obtai ned her j udg m ent agai nst Em enhi ser . Becau se oft hi s, w e concl ude t hat
w het hersect i on 3 . 02 m or eb r oa dl y pr ov i desi ndem ni f i cat i on f orper sonal i nj ur i es o th e r t h a n tho se rel a ted to a ss a u l t i s i rr e l e v a n t. Ther ef or e, t he t r i al cou rt al so di d not er rby gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent on t hi s gr ound. A ppe l l antha d a ut hor ity t o bi nd Sal l y t o t he i ndem ni f i ca t i on agree m ent F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t as se rt s th a t e v e n ifsh e w a s b o u n d to th e i n d e m n i ty p rov i sion s to th e e x ten t th a t a p p e l l e e s h a v e a ss e rt e d , S a l l yca n n o t be b o u n d to t he i ndem ni t y pr ovi si ons because as a m i nor , S al l y i s l egal l y di sabl ed and w as in c o m p e t e n tt o e n t e rt h e a g r e e m e n t . F o rt h isp r o p o s it io n , a p p e lla n tc it e s ru le ofci vi l pr oce dur e 44 and V andewater

v. A m er

i can General

Fi re & Cas ualty Co. , 8 9 0 S .W .2 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 4(T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 1 9 9 4 ), re v ’d, 907 S. W . 2d 491 ( Tex. 199 5) . I n r evi ew i ng t he A us t i n C ourtofA ppe al s’ deci si on i n V andewater, t he22

T e x a s S u p re m eC o u rt c o n s i d e re d “ w h e th e r a t ri a l c o u rt c o u l d p ro p e rl ya c q u i re j ur i sd i ct i on ov era m i norde f end antan d r end era f i nalj udgm entbi ndi ng t he
m i nor ’ s i nt erests w hen t he m i nor ’ s m ot heran sw er ed ast he m i nor ’ s next f r i end. ” V

andewater, 907 S . W . 2d at491. The su pr em e c ourtnot ed t hatt he A us t i n c ourtha d f ocu se d on t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s f ai l ur e “ t o pe r so nal l y s erve [ t he
m i nor ] w i t h pr oce ss ” and t hatt he A us t i n c ourtha d t her ef or e c onc l ude d t hatt he

“ tri a l c o u rt n e v e r a c q u i re d p e rs o n a l j u ri s d i c ti o n ” o v e r h i m . Id. at49 2. Rat her t han app r ovi ng of such a n ar r ow focus, the suprem e courtdet er m i ned t hatan a p p e l l a te c o u rt s h o u ld e v a lu a t e w h e t h e rt h e m in o r ’s in t e r e s t sh a v e b e e n p r o p e r ly p rote c t ed and w het hera def i ci ency i n noti ce ordue pr ocess has been show n t o det er m i ne w het hera t r i al courthas o b tai ned per so nalj ur i sd i ct i on ov era m i nor . I n t hi s ca se , t he ans w erof[ t he m ot her ] i n he rca pac i t y a s [ t he m i nor ’ s] ne xtf r i end w ass uf f i ci ent i ndi ca t i on t hat[ t he m i nor ’ s] l ega l r epr es ent at i ve kne w ab outt he p r o c e e d i n g sa n d c o u l d t h e r e f o r e d e f e n d a g a i n s tt h e m. N o de f i ci enc i esi n not i ceorduepr oce ssar e r ai se d by t he r ec or d on t hese f act s. Id. a t 4 9 2

– 9 3 (c i ta ti o n so m i tte d ); se e L ehm annv. Har- Con Cor p. , 76 S . W . 3d 5 5 5 , 5 6 5 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t. ) (n o tin g t h a t a “par enthas t he r i ght t o r epr esentt he c h i l d i n l egal act i on and t o m ake ot her deci si ons ofsubst ant i al l egal si gni f i cance concer ni ng t he chi l d ” and t hat “a par entpr osecu ti n g in t he dual capaci t y ofnextf r i end of a m i norand as a pl ai nt i f fi n herow n r i ght m ay sett l e a case, p r ovi ded heri nt er esti s notpr ef er r ed14 ... A ppe l l antha s ci t ed no c onf l i ctbe t w ee n he ran d Sal l y i n de f end i ng

agai nstappel l ees’ sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on t hatw oul d have r equi r ed t he t r i al courtt o appo i nta guar di an ad l i t em f ort hatpur pose.

15 ... In a p p ro v i n g th e s e ttlem e n t, th e tri a l c o u rt re c it e d th a t S a l l y ’s guar di an ad l i t em t hor oug hl y consi der ed t he sett l em entand t hathe opi ned t hat i t s t er m s w er e f ai rand r ea so nab l e. T he t r i alco urtf ound t he se t t l em entt o be i n Sal l y’ s bes ti nt er es t ; i tt her ef or e o r der ed t hati tbe“ bi ndi ng a nd c onc l us i ve i n a l l re s p e c ts .” 23 to t h e d e tri m e n t o f th e m i n o r” ); se e al so T e x . R . C i v . P . 4 4(st a ti n g th a t m i n o rs m ay “sue and be re p res e n t ed by ‘ nextf r i end’ ” and t hatt he next f r i end m ay
w i th “ th e a p p ro v a l o f th e c o u rt c o m p ro m i s e s u i ts a n d a g re e to j u d g m e n ts ” ). Li kei n V

andewater, w e con cl ude t hat Sal l y’ s i nt er es t s i n ent er i ng t he sett l em entagr eem ent ’ s i ndem ni t y pr ovi si on and i n def endi ng agai nstappel l ees’ dec l ar at ory j udgm entco unt erc l ai m w er e p r ope r l y pr ot ec t ed bec aus e ( 1) Ja ne in i ti a te d th e o ri g i n a l s u i t a g a i n s t a p p e l l e e so n b e h a l f o f S a l l y , b ri n g i n g S a l ly
w i t hi n t he t r i alco urt ’ s j ur i sd i ct i on, ( 2) Ja ne si gne d t he sett l em entag r ee m ent a s S a l ly ’s n e x tf r ie n d a n d f ile d re s p o n s e st o a p p e lle e s ’ c o u n t e r c la im a n d t h e ir
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent i n t hat sam e capaci t y, ( 3) Sal l y’ s guar di an ad 14 l i t em al so s i gne d t he se t t l em en ta gree m enton h erbe hal f , an d ( 4) ap pel l ant
n o t if ie d t h e t r ia l c o u rto ft h e s e t t le m e n t , w h ic h t h e t r i a l c o u rts p e c if ic a lly app r ove d. 15 Furt her , w e n ot e t hatap pel l ant ’ s pos i t i on a s t o t hi s i ss ue i s i nco ns i st ent
w i t h t he ben ef i tshe obt ai ned f r om t he se t t l em entag r ee m ent . I n e ss enc e, s he24

con t end s t hatshe h ad the aut hor i t y t o a ss ertan d s ett l e c l ai m s on be hal fof S al l y and herw hi l e r ecover i ng l ar ge am oun t s ofm oney b y doi ng so, bu tt hat
s h e d i d n o t h a v e th e a u th o ri tyto p ro v i d e t h e c o n s i d e ra ti o n re q u i re d to s e c u re th a t b e n e fi t. Q u a s i -e s to p p e l p re c l u d e sa p a rt yf ro m a s s e rti n g , to a n o th e r’s di sa dva nt age , a r i ghti nco ns i st entw i t h a pos i t i on pr evi ous l y t ak en; i t“ f or bi ds
a p a rt yf r o m a c c e p t in g t h e b e n e f it so fa t r a n s a c t io n . . . a n d t h e n s u b s e q u e n t ly ta k i n g a n in c o n s i s te n t p o s i ti o n t o a v o i d c o rre s p o n d i n g o b l i g a ti o n so r e ffe c ts .” Brooks v. Brooks , 2 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rt h 2 0 0 8 , p e t. deni ed) . Based on q uasi
- est opp el and t he ot her aut hor i t y ci t ed above, w e r ej ect th e as se rt i o n th a t S a l l yi s n o t bo u n d to th e se ttl e m e n t ag ree m e n t’ s i n d e m n i ty pr ovi si ons . Thus , sum m ary j udgm enton app el l ee s’ co unt er cl ai m w asal so not pr ecl uded on t hi s basi s. Th e t r i alcourtpr oper l y gr ant ed sum m ary j u d g m enton appel l ees’ in d e m n ityc o u n t e r c la im Foral l oft hes e r ea so ns, w e h ol d t hatap pel l ee s es t abl i sh ed t hatno genu i ne i ssue ofm at er i alf actex i st s and thatthey ar e ent i t l ed t o j udg m entas a m att erofl aw ag ai ns tap pel l antba se d on t he i nde m ni t y pr ovi si onsi n t he
s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n t. T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); se e Grant, 73 S . W . 3d a t215. W e t he r efore aff i r m t he t r i al co urt ’ s orde rgranti ng ap pe l l ee s’ sum m ary j udgm entm ot i on on t hatgr ound.16 ... W hi l e i tm ay r em ai n m at er i alt o Em enh i se r( w ho m us ts at i sf y a

$5, 000 , 000 j udgm ent ) , hedi d notap pea l t he t r i alco urt ’ s dec i si on t o gr ant appel l ees’ m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m enton t hei rd ecl ar at or y j udg m entcr osscl ai m agai nsthi m , nordi d he f i l e any r esponse t o t he t r i al court r egar di ng t hat m ot i on. 25 O uraff i r m anc e o ft he t r i alco urt ’ s su m m ary j udgm enton t he bas i s of a p p e lle e s ’ in d e m n if ic a t io n c o u n t e r c la im isd is p o s it iv eo ft h isa p p e a l A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on on f i l e att he t i m e t he t r i al c o u rtgr ant ed appel l ees’
m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udg m entagai nsthersought a decl ar at i on t hatEm enhi ser
w asan i ns ur ed un de ra ppe l l ee s’ co ver agew i t h DI SD f ort he pur pos e o f
es t abl i sh i ng t hat app el l ee s w er e “ obl i gat ed t o s at i sf y a ny j udgm ent ” app el l ant o b t a in e d a g a i n s tE m e n h is e r . B e c a u s e w e h o ld t h a tt h e in d e m n it ya n d h o ld ha r m l e s s l a ng ua gei n t hes e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e ntb e t w e e n a pp el l a nta nd DI SD p re c l u d e sa p p e l l e e s ’ re s p o n s i b i l i tyt o p a ya n ys u c h j u d g m e n t to a p p e l l a n t, w e concl ude t hatas t o her( and on Sal l y’ s behal f ) , t he i ssue of w het herEm enhi ser is a n in s u r e d u n d e r t h e in t e r lo c a l p a rt ic ip a t io n a g r e e m e n t is im m a t e r ia l. I n 16 ot herw or ds , t hough t he i nde m ni t y pr ovi si on i s notan af f i r m at i ve def ens e n or a n a b s o l u te b a r to a p p e l l a n t’sc l a i m s e e k i n g a c o v e ra g e d e te rm i n a ti o n , s e eD err Cons tructi

on Co. v. City of Hous ton , 846 S. W . 2d 854 , 858 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 2 , n o w ri t), w e h o l d th a t i n th i sc a s e , i t re n d e rs t he cov er agede t er m i nat i on m oot . Ther ef or e, w e w i l l notco ns i derw het hert he t r i al co urtpr ope r l y gr ant ed app el l ee s’ s um m ary j udgm entm ot i onson t he26

c o v e ra g e i s s u e . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 7 .1 ; Hawki ns v. W

al ker, 233 S. W . 3d 3 8 0 , 3 9 5 n . 4 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.). C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a d i s p o s i ti v e p o rti o n o f a p p e l l a n t’ss o l e i s s u e , w e a ffir m th e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E
PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N and M C C O Y, JJ. ; and W I LL I A M BRI G H A M ( S en i or J u s ti c e , R e ti re d , S i ttin g b yA s s i g n m e n t). DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 5, 2009