### NUM BER 13-07- 0059 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
BA NN ER SIGN &B A RR ICA DE, INC ., A pp ellan t,
v . BER RY GP, IN C., A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 67t h Dist rict C ou rt o f V icto ria C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Ban ner Sign & Barricade , Inc. (“Bann er”), appe als f rom th e trial court’s
summar y judg ment in fav or

of appel lee Ber ry

GP, Inc . ( “B er ry ”)

. Ber ry broug ht a thi rd -p arty act ion ag ain st Banner , seek ing ind emnific ati on for amounts pai d by Ber ry i n the se ttl ement of a w ro ng ful death sui t ar is ing from an ac ci dent in a hi g hw ay co nst ru cti on z one. By

three issues, Ba nne r cont end s tha t the trial court erred in grant ing Berry ’s motio n for sum ma ry judgm e nt an d de nying Bann er’s tradition al and no-evidence mot ions for sum ma ry j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND O n t h e n i g h to f A p r i l 4 , 2 0 0 2 , D e z a ra e C ro w w a s d r i v i n g n o rt h b o u n d o n U n it ed S t a t e s H i g h w a y

8 7 b e tw een Plac edo a n d V i c t o r i a , T e x a s
. C ro w w a s d r i v i n g o n t h e l e ft2

lan e, w hic h w as under

co nst ru cti on, w hen s he dr ifted o nto a n unmar ked left t ur n l ane. She
ra n of f the left side of

the ro adw ay , s teered bac k o nto t he nor thbound l anes, then sk idd ed and ent ered th e c enter

medi an, c ausi ng her

ca r to roll ov er

tw ic e. Crow

w as eje cte d from the ve h ic le ont o the south bou nd lan e an d w as killed. On Feb ruary 21, 200 3, Crow ’s parents broug ht sui t aga ins t gen eral cont ra cto r Ber ry under the w ro ng ful deat h and sur v iv al sta tutes , see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 71.0 02, 71. 021 (Verno n 2 0 0 8 ),
ass erti ng cl aims of neg li g ence, g ro ss negl ig ence, and neg li g ence per se. S peci fical ly , t he Crow s a ll eg ed th at B er ry fail ed: (1 ) to m a rk

the left t ur n l ane w it h temporar y flex ibl ere flect iv e roadw ay

m ar ker tape; (2) to pla ce per manent lane edg e l ine s o n the new ly pav ed hig hw ay ; (3 ) to pla ce bar re ls , bar ri cades , or co nes; and (4 ) to proper ly w ar n dr iv ers o f the
unsa fe road cond itions. On M ar ch 11, 2004, Ber ry broug ht a thi rd -p arty act ion ag ain st Banner , as ser ti ng that Banner w as re spons ibl e for the fai lures a lleg ed by the Crow s. On Ma rc h 11, 2004, the Crow s fil ed an amended peti ti on, addi ng a fifth al leg ati on th at B er ry created an uns afe and haz ardous ro ad c ondi ti on and a s ixth al leg ati on th at B anner fa ile d t o prov ide proper pav ement s tr ipi ng and si g nag e. The Crow s a g ain amended theirp eti ti on on Ma rc h 29, 2004, addi ng the Tex as Dep artment o f T ranspor

tati on ( “Tx DO T”) as a de fendant, an d
as s er ti ng a l l s i x

a l l eg ed b rea c he s a g ai ns t Be r r y , Ba nn er , an d Tx D OT

. Ber ry al so cl aimed that itw as enti tl ed to co ntract ual i ndemni ficat ion from Ba nner under a 19 96 M ast er

Ser v ic e Ag re ement be tw een Ba nner and Bay , Lt d. ( “B ay ”)

. Bay , a subsid iary

of Berry , ent ered into a con tract w ith the State of Te x as in 199 9 to con struct approx imat ely

9.6 mil es of Uni ted S tates H ig hw ay 87 b etw een Pl acedo and Vi cto ri a; t he accide nt t hatclaimed Crow ’s li fe too k place on this stretch of road. T he Maste r Serv ice Ag re ement pe rt ain ed to su bcont ra cti ng w or k d one by Banner on th is and other proje cts for
w hich Ba y

w as the g ene ral contract or. Parag ra ph 8 of the M ast er Ser v ic e Ag re ement, enti tl ed “ Inde m n if ic ati on and Insu rance ” ( the “Indem nif ication Clause”), provi ded as follows: The SU BC ON TRAC TOR [Banne r] ag re es to protec t, defend, i ndemni fy and3

hold harm less BAY, the OW NER of the project fo r wh ich w ork und er this ag re ement i s p er

formed, e ach cont ra cti ng par ty betw een O W NE R and BA Y on th e pr oject, their co-lessee s, partn ers, joint ventures, agents, of f icers, directo rs, emp loyees, represe ntati v es , i ns urers, cont ractors, sub cont ractors, and pare nt, subsidiary and af f iliated comp anie s and the ir em p lo yees, off ic ers, direct ors, and s harehol ders ( herein after re f er re d to col lecti v ely as “I ndemni fied Par

ti es” ) from and ag ain st all cl aims, d e mands, l iab il it ies and cause s of

a ction, including atto rney’s fees, of ev eryty pe a nd ch aracte r, w it hout li mit and w it hout re g ard to t he c ause or ca uses thereof, w hic h may ar is e outof, i n c onnec ti on w it h, or i nci dental to t h e per formance by SU BC ON TRAC TOR of anyw or k u nder thes e ter ms and condi ti ons, or to the presenc e of SU BC ON TRAC TOR on any premis es ow ned by

or i n w hic h BAY has any i nterestand w hic h: (1 ) are as ser

ted for damag e to, or destr uct ion of , tools , eq uip ment or o th er ma te r i al s o f t he S U BC ON TRAC TO R , i ts a ffil i at es, cus tomer s, subc ontr act or s , ag ents , empl oy ees and represe nta tiv es; or, (2) are asse rted by or arise i n favor of a ny p e rson, du e to bo dily in ju ry, p e rs o n a l i n ju ry, d e a t h o r l o s s o r d a m a ge o f p ro p e rt y;
w hether or not caus ed by

th e s o le , joi nt or

co ncur re nt ne g li g ence of the Inde mnified Par

ti es, ar is ing under

any cl aim of str ic t l iab il ity , for the unse aworthiness of

any v essel, o r from any other unst ate d cau se e v en if predati ng the ex ecut ion of this Agreement, w it h the sole ex cept ion thatany Indemni fied Par

ty g uil ty of int enti onal ly

tor ti ous condu ct shal l not b e ent it led t o in d e m n it y. Banner ans w ered bypleadi ng an aff ir mati v e defense of immuni ty and deny ing that Ber ry w as enti tl ed to co ntract ual i ndemni ficat ion under the Ma ste r Ser

v ic e Ag re ement. Banner addi ti onal ly

fil ed a count er cl aim ag ain st Bay bas ed on a s w or n ac count , c ontendi ng that Bay ow ed Banner

approx imat ely

$36,000 for the rental of traff icco ntrol dev ic es. O n June 6, 20 05, t h e tr ial co urt s ev ered th e i ndemni ficat ion di sput e betw een Be rr y and Ban ner. T h e Crows subse quently non-suite d Ban ner an d the n sett led th eir suit against Berryand TxDOT at m edia tion o n Jun e 30 , 2 0 0 5

. P u rs u a nt to the set tlem ent , Berry ag re ed to pay

$800, 000 i n damag es to t he C ro w s, but B er ry and Tx DOT c o nti nued t o
e xp re s s ly d e n y a n y li a b il it y. The di sput e betw een Ber ry and Banner re mained pendi ng
. Ber ry filed a mot ion for par ti al summar

y j udg ment on Ma y

16, 2005, cont endi ng thatthe acc ide nt w as cov ered by the M ast er

Ser v ic e Ag re ement and that Ber ry , “a s an aff il iat ed company of B ay
. . . and as the p arent c ompany

of Bay ,” w as enti tl ed to ind emnific ati on from Banner

. Ber ry prov ide dBer r y l at er off er ed a m ended aff i dav i t s by Vanam an o n August 22, 200 6 an d Novem ber 2, 200 6. 1 Banner obj ect ed t o ea ch of t he a ff i dav i t s i n t ur n. 4 summar y j udg ment ev ide nce in the for m of an aff ida v itex ecute d b y Ch a rl es Vanaman, Bay’s general counsel, stating tha t the Ind em nif ication Clause w as in ef fect fo r t h e wo rk under tak en by Bay at the t ime o f

t h e a cc id ent. Vanaman’ s a ff ida v ital so sta ted t hat t he I n d e m n if ic a t io n Cl a u s e wa s a p p li c a b le t o B e rry a s a su b s id ia ry o f B a y. 1 Banner fil ed a respon se as w ell as i ts ow n tradi ti onal and no- ev ide nce moti ons for
sum ma ry

judgmen t as to Be rry ’s claims on Jun e 6, 20 05. In its motio ns for su m m ary jud g ment, Banner

co ntended that t h e re wa s no ev ide nce that any ac t or omi ss ion on i ts par t cause d anyinju ry

to Crow
. Banner

also ass erted that itw as enti tl ed to j udg ment as a matt er of law bec ause itdid not b re ach any duty

. In s uppor

t of i ts re spons e and it s moti ons, Banne r prov ide d deposi ti on ex cer pts w hic h purpor ted to show

that Banner w as notrespon sible for und ertakin g the four saf ety precautio ns en um erate d by the Crow s in thei r sui t. On J un e 21 , 20 05 , Be r r y fi l ed a res po ns e to B an ne r ’ s mo ti on s for s um mary jud g ment, arg uin g thatsu ff ici e n t ti m e had not e lap sed to pe rmi t di sc ov er y rela ti ng to Banner ’s obl ig ati ons as Ber ry ’s su bcont ra cto r. O n Aug ust23, 2006, Ber ry fil ed an amended re spons e to Banner ’s moti ons for s ummary j udg ment, as w ell as a “ Mo ti on for Summary

Ju dg ment for Con tract ual Inde mnity ,” w hic h repeated , in larg e par t, the
ass erti ons of B er ry ’s or ig ina l moti on for par ti al summar

y jud g ment fil ed on Ma y 16, 2005. As sum ma ry

judgmen t evidence, B erry in clude d, am ong oth er things, the Master Servi ce Ag re ement, the V anaman affidav it , and the set tl ement ag re ement ex ecut ed by Ber ry and the Crow s. On J une 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l c o u rt e n t e re d i t s j u d g me n t g ra n t i n g B e r r y ’ s mo t i o n for summary ju d gment on i ndemni ty and deny ing Banne r’ s mot ion s for su mmary

j udg ment,
w it hout spec ify ing the g ro unds re li ed upon for t he r uli n g. The tr ial co urt al so ov er ru led Ban ner’s obje ctions to Berry ’s summ aryjudgmen t evidence, and sev ered Bann er’s sw orn
acc ount count er cl aim. Ba n n e r f iled a moti on for new tr ial on J uly

23, 2007, w hic h w as5

ov er ru led by

operati on of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 3 29b( c)

. This appeal foll ow ed.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s g ra nt or

deni al of a tradi ti onal moti on for summary

j udg ment under a de nov o s tandard of rev iew

. Cr editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 16
n .7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 147 S. W .3d 2 64, 2 90 n. 137 (Tex . 200 4) ); Al

an i z v
. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. The functi on of summar y j udg ment is to eli minat e patentl y unmeri tor iou s c lai ms and defenses, not to de pr iv e l it ig ants of the r ig ht t o a t ri al by j ur y
. Tex. D ep’

t of Park s &Wildl if e
v. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 28 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Alan iz , 105 S.W .3d a t 345

. T o o b t ain relief

v ia a traditio nal m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t, the movant m ust est abl is h tha t no mater ial factiss ue ex is ts and that it is entitl ed to judg ment as a matter of law

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 200 2); M ow

bray v. Avery , 76 S.W .3d 6 63, 6 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. den ied). Af

ter the mo v ant prod uces ev iden ce suf f icient to show i t is entitled to sum ma ry jud g ment, the non-mov ant must then pres ent ev ide nce ra is ing a facti ss ue. See Walk er v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 375 , 377 (Tex. 1996 ). In d eciding w het her the re is a disp ute d fact is sue that p re clu des summar y j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant w il l be tak en as tr ue. Am . Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll , 9 5 1 S. W .2 d 42 0 , 4 2 5 ( T e x. 19 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Ni xon
v. Mr . Pr oper ty Mgm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 548- 49 (Tex

. 1985) ). Ev ide nce fav orabl e to the mov ant, how ev er , w il l not b e c o n sidered unl ess i t i s u ncont ro v erted. G re a t A m. Res er ve Ins . C o. v

. Sa n Antoni

o Plum bin g Supp ly

C o. , 391 S.W .2d 4 1, 47 (Tex. 1965 ). Mo re ov er , ev er

y reason abl e i nferenc e mustbe i ndul g ed i n fav or of the n on- mov ant a nd any doubts res olv ed in its fav or
. Grinne ll , 9 5 1 S. W .2 d at42 5 (cit in g Ni xon , 690 S.W .2d a t 549 ). For

a no -e v ide nce summar y j udg ment moti on to be s ucc ess ful, t he par ty se eking the jud g ment must ass ert that no ev ide nce ex is ts as to one or more o f th e es sent ial elem ent s of

the no n-mo v ant ’s claims upo n w hich he w ould have th e bu rden of proof at trial. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( i) ; Hol str omv. Lee , 26 S.W .3d 5 26, 5 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000,6

no pet .)

. W hen re spond ing to a no- ev ide nce moti on, t he non- mov ant i s o nly req uired to prese nt evidence thatraises a genuine issue of m ate rial fact on the ch allenged elem ent s. See AMS Constr. Co., In c. v. W armSprings Reh ab. Found ., Inc. , 94 S.W .3 d 1 5 2 , 159 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 2 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g McCom bs v. Childr e n ’ sMed . Ctr. , 1 S.W .3d 256 , 258 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 19 99, pet. den ied ))

. The non -movant m ust produce more tha n a s ci nti ll a of probat ive ev ide nce to rais e an is sue of materi al fact. Oas is Oi l Cor p. v . Ko ch Ref

. C o. , 60 S.W .3d 248, 252 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. deni ed)

. M ore tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen t he ev ide nce ri ses to a l ev el that
w oul d enabl e reason abl e and fair-mi nded people to differ in t hei r conc lus ion s. Me rr ell D ow Phar m s., Inc . v

. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 706 , 711 (Tex. 1997 ). W hen bot h par

ti es m o ve for s ummary j udg ment and the tr ial co urt g ra nts one
mo tion a nd d enie s the ot her, th e ap pellat e cou rt sh o u ld r eview both parties’ sum ma ry jud g ment ev ide nce and deter mine all q uest ion s p re sent ed. See FM Pr ops. Oper

ati ng C o. v. City of Austin , 22 S.W .3d 8 68, 8 72 ( Tex . 200 0) ; W ar ra ntech Cor

p. v. Steadf

ast Ins . C o. , 210 S.W .3d 760 , 765 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 2006 , no pet.). T he review ing court shou ld
re nder the jud g ment t hat t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e rendered. See FM Props. , 22 S.W .3d at 87 2; W

arrante ch , 210 S.W .3d a t 765

. If the tr ial cour

t’ s order g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment does not spec ify the g ro und or g ro unds re li ed upon for t he ru lin g, we w il l aff ir m the jud g ment on appeal i f anyof the theor ies adv anced by

the mov ant a re mer it or iou s. Dow Ch em
. Co. v. Francis , 46 S. W .3d 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 (T e x. 20 0 1 ) (qu o ti n g Car r v. Br asher , 776 S.W .2d 567 , 569 (Tex. 1989 )). III
. D I S CUS S I ON By i ts firs t i ss ue, B anner

co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng Ber ry ’s moti on for s ummary

j udg ment on cont ra ctu al ind emnity bec ause Ber ry f a iled to prov ide any
com pet entsu mm aryju dgme nt evidence esta blishing t hatit w as ent itled to jud gmen t as a matter of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; W alk er , 924 S.W .2d a t 377

. By i ts thi rd i ss ue, Ban ner con ten ds tha t the trial court erred by den y ing its no-e v iden ce mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment. Bec ause both is sues tur n on w hether Berr y prov ide d suff ic ien t ev ide nce to al lowA s n o te d , a m o v a n t f o r tr a d itio n a l s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t m u s t p r o d u c e e v id e n c e s u ff ic ie n t t o s h o w it 2 i s e n ti tl e d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w
. S e e W a lk e r v . H a r r is , 9 2 4 S .W .2 d 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 ( T e x . 1 9 9 6 ) . T o a v o id s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, th e n o n -m o v a n t m u s t t h e n p re s e n t e v i d e n c e ra i s i n g a g e n u i n e fa c t i s s u e
. I d.

H o w e v e r , B a n n e r d o e s n o t c o n te n d in its f ir s t is s u e th a t it r a is e d a g e n u in e f a c t is s u e a s to B e r r y’s c l ai m s
. R athe r, i t as s ert s t ha t B erry fai l ed t o c l ea r t he fi rst hu rdl e i n o btai ni ng a t rad i t i on al m oti on for su m m ary j udgm ent

— t hat i s, i t f ai l ed t o sho w any com pet ent ev i dence showi ng i t i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw. T her ef or e, t hi s i ssue m er ges wi t h B anner ’ s t hi r d i ssue, w hi ch cont ends expl i ci t l y t hat B er r y pr oduced no evi de nc e e s t ab l i s hi ng i t s en t i t l em en t t o jud gm en t i n i t s favo r. 7 the trial court to grantsumm aryjudgmen t in its fa v or, w e con sider the issues togeth er. 2 A
. Van aman A

ff id av it The summar

y j udg ment ev id e n c e p rov ide d by Ber ry i ncl uded t he Van aman aff ida v it , w hic h w as acc ompani ed by the Ma ste r Ser

v ic e Ag re ement and the purchas e order perta ining to the stret ch of highw ay w here t he a cciden t occurred . Th e af f idavit stated , in
re lev ant p art: As V i c e P re s i d e n t/ G e n e ra l C o u n s e l o f B e r r y G P , I n c
. I h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the rela ti onshi p betw een Be rr y GP, Inc . and i ts aff il iat ed compani es, Bay Ltd. and Ba y , I nc. and of thei r rela ti onshi ps spec ific all y on September

22, 1999, the d ay the co n tractw as si g ned betw een Ba y Ltd. and the Tex as Dep artment of Trans p o rt a ti on on behal f of the Stat e of Tex as for cons tr uct ion of 15.517 ki lomet ers of U.S . H ig hw ay 87 i n Vi cto ri a C ounty

and on A pr i l 4, 20 04 , th e da y D ez arae C row rec ei v ed fat al i nj ur i es o n th ats am e stretch of

highw ay. On th o s e d a t es an d at all inte rv enin g time s, Bay, Inc. a n d B a y L t d

. we re su b s id ia ri e s o f B e rry G P , I n c
. , t h e ir

p a re n tco m p a n y. Ban ne r c o n t end s thatthis state me nt did not con stitute comp ete nt evidence beca use Vanaman d id not reci te t hat h e “ is an a ttor ney , l ic ensed to pract ic e , o r h as leg al train ing to s up p o rt , o r re c i t e fa c t u a l b a s e s fo r , h i s c o n c l u s o r y o p i n i o n s re g a rd i n g re l a t i o n s h ips of the entitie s, Bay, Inc., Ba y , Ltd ., Berry GP, In c., an d BerryConsultin g, Inc. as bein g tho se of ‘aff il iat es’ or

‘subs idi ar ies ’ or

‘parent’ or ‘ul ti mate parent ’ . . . .” How ev er , Ba nner does not d irectus to any

auth or ity

indi cat ing that such a statementw as neces sar y for t he tr ial
cour t t o hav e c onsi dered Van aman’s aff ida v it

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38 .1(h). In th e ab sence of a n y s u c h a u t h o r i t y , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e V a n a ma n a ffi d a v i tc o n s t i t u t e d c o mp etent
summar y j udg ment ev ide nce. B. A pp licab ili ty

o f In dem ni fi cat io n Cl ause Banner al so cla im s that Ber ry ’s su mmary j udg ment ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o
e st a b lis h tha t t he ac ci dent “a r[ o]s e outof, i n c onnec ti on w it h, or i nci dental to the8

per formance by

[Ba nner ] of anyw or k under

[the] t er ms and co ndi ti ons [i n the Ag re ement],
or to the p re senc e of [B anner ] on any premis e s o w ned by

or i n w hic h BAY

has any int erest ,” as req uired by the Indemni ficat ion Ag re ement. W e di sag re e. In Ban ner Sign & B arricade, Inc. v. Price Constru ction, Inc. , 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 2 (T e x. App.–Sa n A ntoni o 2002, pet. deni ed) , t he San Ant oni o C our t of Appea ls appl ied an ind emnific ati on c lau se subs tanti all y si mil ar to the o ne inv olv ed here. In that cas e, B anner prov ide d bar ri cades , s ig ns, and traff icdev ic es to P ric e p u rsu a nt t o a s ubcon tract

. Id. at 697. After

a two-veh icl e co nst ru cti on s it e ac ci dent, the pla int iffs sued Pr ic e. Id. at 694. Pr ic e the n j oin ed Ban ner i n the ac ti on as a respon si ble t h ird p a rt y, all eg ing thati t w as enti tl ed to i ndemni ficat ion

. Id. T he trial court severed th e inde mn if ication and neglig ence
cas es. Id. A jur

y su bseq uentl y

found Pr ic e 80 % re sponsi ble for t he ac ci dent, the other dr iv er 20% r e sp o n si ble , and Banne r 0% respon si ble

. Id. The t ri al cour t t hen g ra nted
summar y j udg ment t o Pr ic e on the i ndemni ficat ion cl aim ag ain st Banner

. Id. Aff ir ming the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment, our si ste r cour

t hel d that Banner

had not rais ed a g enui ne fact iss u e a s to w hether the ind emnific ati on c lau se cov ered th e ac ci dent at issue. Id. a t 6 9 7

. Th e i n d e mn i fi c a t i o n c l a u s e a t i s s u e t h e re “ c o v e r [ e d ] a l l cl aims and injuries of

any nature whatsoe v er ‘arising in any ma nne r, directly or indirectly, outof or in
conne cti on w it h or

i n the c o urse of or inc ide ntal to, any of [Banne r] ’s w or k o r operati ons here und er or in conne ction h erewi th.’” Id. Pr ic e had cont ra ct e d w it h Bann er to prov ide barricade s, sig ns, an d traf f ic devi ces, an d crucia ll y, t h e p laintif fs’ petition in that ca se “i ncl uded a cl aim for ‘t he suppl y ing of i nadeq uate and ina ppropr iat e mater ial s t o be used
as w arning devices.’” Id. Th e re fo r e , t h e c o u rt h e l d , t h e c l a i ms a s s e rt e d b y t h e pl ain t i ffs
w ere s ubj ectto the i ndemni ficat ion prov is ion

. Id. Ban ner’s subco ntractw ith Berry is substa ntially similar to the one conside red in Price , c ov er ing any

ca use of action “ which may ar is e outof, i n c onnec ti on w it h, or inc ide ntal to the p er

formance by

[Ba nner ] of any w or k u n d e r [t h e s ubcon tract ], or to the p re s e n c e o f

[ B a n n e r] o n a n y

p re m i s e s o w n e d b y

o r i n w h i c h B AYh a s a n y

i n t e re s t

. ” W e hav e prev iou sl y

hel d, i n the co ntext of

an ind emnity

claus e, that the terms “ar is e outof” a nd9

“i n c onnec ti on w it h” do n ot mean that the i ndemni tee mus t s h o w d irector prox imat e
caus ati on. See C oast al Ma rt , Inc. v. Sw. B ell

T el. C o. , 1 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 5 , p e t. gran te d , ju d gm ’tvaca te d w .r .m .) (cit in g Ut ic a Nat ’ l Ins . C o.
v. Am . Indem . C o. , 141 S.W .3d 198 , 203 (T ex. 20 03) (“‘Ari sing ou t of ’ a re w ords of much broader si g nific ance than ‘c aused by .’ ”) ). Rat her , suc h ter ms re q uire onl y thata “ g eneral nexus” be esta blished betw een the subco ntract or’s obligation s and the det rimen t for w hich ind emnity

i s s oug ht. Id. (“ ‘[A]r is e out of ’ si mply m eans thatthere is ‘ a c asual co nnect ion
or re lation .’”). Here, the Mast er Servi ce Agreem entprovi ded thatBann er w as respo nsible for prov idi ng traff icco ntrol dev ic es, w hil e the C ro w s a ll eg ed i n the ir peti ti on th at t he defendants, am o n g o t h e r thi ng s, “fai l[ ed] t o prov ide proper pav ement s tr ipi ng and si g nag e.” This su mmary jud g ment ev ide nce w as suffici ent to est abl is h the “g eneral nex us” req uired to br ing the acc ide nt un der the pur v iew of the I ndemni ficat ion C lau se. Banner arg ues that Price can b e d is tinguished f rom th e insta nt case , beca use
w hereas the p lai nti ffs i n Price w on a jury v erdict of dam ages against th e con tracto r, Berry
v olun tarily

settled their case he re. How ever, the Ind em nif ication Clau se doe s n ot limit itself to liabilities incurred as a resul to f a n a d ve rse v erdict. Inst ead , it ex pressly covers “ all cl aims , demand s, li abi li ti es and c auses of act ion

. . . of ev er y ty pe and c haract er , w it hout limit and w ithou t regard to the cause o r c a u s e s t here of . . . w hich m ay arise outof , in
conne cti on w it h, or

i nci dental to the perfor mance by [Banner] . .

. . ” Gi v en th e s w eepi ng
n a t u re o f t h e I n d e m n if ic a t io n Cl a u s e , we co n c lu d e t h a tt h e cl a im s a s s e rt e d b y t h e Cr o ws
w ere s ubj ectto the p ro v is ion s o f t he cl ause. Se e Coasta l Mart, Inc. , 154 S.W .3d a t 845 ; Price , 94 S.W .3d a t 697

. C. Reas onablene ss of Settleme nt Agreem ent Banner f urther arg ues that Ber ry

f ail ed to show

that it w as enti tl ed to indemnity as a matt er of law bec ause it did not p re senta s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce show ing thati ts set tl ement
w it h the C ro w s w as re asona ble and made i n g ood fait h. “F or a s ettl ing i ndemni tee t o recov er an a mount of the se ttl ement fro m it s in d e m nit or , t he i ndemni tee mus t s how i ts potent ial l iab il ity

to a c lai mant and thatthe10

set tl ement w as re asona ble , pr udent, and made i n g ood fait h under the ci rc umstan ces .” H.S.M. Acqu isitions, In c. v. W est , 917 S.W .2d 872, 879 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1996, pet. deni ed) ( ci ti ng F

ir em an’ s Fund Ins

. Co. v. Com m er ci al Standa rd

Ins . C o. , 490 S.W .2d 818, 824 ( Tex . 197 2) ; Gett y O il C or p. v . D uncan , 721 S.W .2d 475, 477 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 1986 , wri tr e f ’d n.r.e.)). W ithou t this requireme nt, th e sett ling inde mn itee would have no ince ntive to bargain w ith the claima nt fo r a reaso nab le settle me nt am oun t beca use the inde mn itee w ould in any case be assure d of f ull recovery

f rom th e inde mn itor, even if the s ettl ement amoun t w as ex or bit ant. Ber ry ’s su mmary

j udg ment e vidence di d notes tabl is h tha t t he te rms of the set tl ement ag re ement ex ecut ed by Ber ry and the C ro w s b ore any rela ti onshi p to the dam ages suf

fered b y t he Crow s a s a result of the accid ent . How ever, Bann er did no t raise the issue of

the rea sona blen ess of the set tlem entagreeme n ti n i t s respon se to Be rry ’s
m oti on for summar

y j udg ment or

i n i ts ow n no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. Issue s thatw ere no t expressly presen ted to the trial court in the m otion for sum ma ry jud g ment c annot be c onsi dered by an appel lat e court as grounds for rev ersal

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Progre ssive Coun ty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd , 177 8 S.W .3d 919 , 921 (Tex. 2005 ); John son v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S. W .3d 193 , 204 (Tex. 2002 ). Be caus e Ber ry

produce d c ompetentev ide nce to es tabl is h i ts enti tl ement t o judgme nt as a m atte r of law , w e con clude thatthe trial court did n ot err in grant ing Berry ’s tradi ti onal moti on for summar y jud g ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; W alk er , 924 S.W .2d at 3 7 7

. M o re o v e r , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g B a n n er ’s noev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( i) ; Hol str om , 26 S.W .3d at 53 0. Acc ordin g ly , Ba nner ’s first and t hird i ss ues are ov er ru led

. D. Banner’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment By i ts sec ond i ss ue, B anner arg ues that itw as enti tl ed to j udg ment as a mat ter of law bec ause ind emnific ati on w as unav ail abl e to Ber ry
. W e di sag re e. Banner f irst cont ends that itw as not req uired to co mply w it h the Inde mnific ati on Clause b ecau se Berry failed to pay Banne r in acco rd a n c e w ith the Master Servi ceB an ne r add i t i on al l y cl ai m s t ha t i t w as en t i t l ed t o jud gm en t as a m att er of l aw b e c a us e: (1) B erry 3 s ho w ed a l ac k of go od fai t h i n i t s pl ea di ng s ; (2) B erry ’ s cl ai m for i nd em ni fi c ati on w as ba s ed on a v o l u ntary set t l em ent ; and ( 3) Ber r y f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hei r pot ent i al l i abi l i t y i n t he under l y i ng l awsui t

. H owev er , Banner has n ot pr ov i ded any aut hor i t y supp or t i ng t he co nt ent i on t hat i t woul d be ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m at t er of 11 Agreem ent . In its tradition al mo tion for sum ma ry judgme nt, Bann er asserte d tha t “Bay, Inc. and/or Bay , Ltd. hav e breac hed the M ast er Ser v ic e Ag re ement .

. . by

fail ing and re fusing to pa y
. . . for t ra ff icco ntrol dev ic e rental s .
. . and ow es in ex ces s o f $18,000.0 0” and theref o re t h a t “ nei ther Ber ry nor the Bay

enti ti es are ent it led to any defenses or ind emnific ati ons cl aimed. ” On appeal , Ba nner note s t he g eneral ru le that re ci procal prom ises in a cont ract, ab sentinten tions to the con trary , are presu me d to be mut ually dep end entand the bre ach o f one w ill excuse the performa nce o f the ot her. D.E.W

., Inc. v. Depco Form s, Inc. , 827 S.W .2d 379 , 382 (Tex. A pp. –Sa n Ant onio 199 2, no pet. ). Banner cl aims thati t w as absol v ed of i ts obl ig ati on to i ndemni fy Ber ry bec ause of this r ule

. How ev er , an ind emnity

ag re ement “ is an o ri g ina l obl ig ati on betw een the contract ing par ti es and indep end entof

othe r agreem ent s.” Tes or o Petr ole um Cor

p. v. Nab or

s D ri ll ing U .S. , 1 0 6 S. W .3 d 11 8 , 1 2 7 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 2 0 0 2 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Jos eph Thom as, Inc . v

. G ra ham , 842 S.W .2d 343 , 346 (Tex. A pp. –T y ler 1 992 , no wr it)). Moreover, Banner ’s sw or n ac countco untercl aim w as sev ered by the tr ial co urt, and so the remedy of d am ag es rem ai ns av ai l ab l e to Ba nn er to red res s an y brea c h of th e M as ter Service Ag re ement c ommitt ed by Ber ry
. See Hanks v. GA B B u s
. Servs. , 644 S.W .2d 7 07, 7 08 (Tex . 198 2) ( “[ W ]hen a c ov enant g oes onl y to par t of the cons ide ra ti on on both si des and a breach maybe co m p e n sa ted for i n damag es, i t i s t o be re g arded as an i ndependen t
cov enant, u n le ss t h is is cont ra ry to the e x press ed i ntentof the p arti es. ”)

. Beca use the Indemni ficat ion C lau se is an i ndependen t c ov enant, Banne r is not e xcu se d f rom it s obl ig ati ons under

the cont ra ct based on a ll eg ati ons that Ber ry breache d the co ntract

. See Tesoro , 106 S.W .3d a t 127

. Ban ner f urthe r arg ues th at ind em nif ication w as una v ailable to Berry beca use Be rry faile d to est abl is h tha t t he te rms of thei r ag re ement w it h the C ro w s w ere reas onabl e and made i n good faith. How ev er , Ba nner di d notrais e thi s i ss ue i n i ts tradi ti onal moti on for 3l a w o n th e s e g ro u n d s
. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38

. 1(h ). 12

sum ma ry

judgmen t. Accordingly , w e ma y not reverse the trial court’s j udgm enton the se g ro unds. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Boyd , 177 8 S. W .3d a t 921 ; Johns on , 73 S.W .3d a t 204

. Banner ’s se cond is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Banne r’ s t hree i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 25t h day

of September , 200 8.