Opinion ID: 601518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 The grant of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, using the same criteria employed by the district court. 6 This court must review the evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 7 A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 8 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and only a question of law is presented. 9
9 Anheuser alleges that its relationship with Force is governed at least in part by the disputed indemnity clause. Force counters that even if the clause in issue were part of a contract between Force and Anheuser (which Force vigorously denies), and even if that clause were effective here, it would not require Force to reimburse Anheuser for its costs and legal fees incurred in defending McDaniel's suit. Assuming without so deciding that this indemnity provision did govern the relationship between Anheuser and Force, we begin our analysis by examining the language of that clause: 10 The contractor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. its subsidiaries and affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as ABC) from all claims and suits by the parties and third parties for damages to property and injuries, including death to persons, including but not limited to, Contractor or any subcontractor and their respective agents, servants and employees, if any such event of damage or injury shall occur during or incident to the performance of work required under the terms of this Contract, and from all judgments recovered therefor, and from all expenses in defending said claims and suits, including court costs, attorneys' fees and other expenses, caused by the act or omission of the Contractor or any subcontractor or their respective servants, agents and employees, and not by the sole fault or negligence of ABC, its servants, agents or employees. 10 11 The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is one of law. 11 This is not a standard indemnity clause by any means; it is unique and was tailor-made by Anheuser for its own use. Still it is not ambiguous. In the lexicon of indemnification, the instant provision is properly classified as a limited indemnity clause in that it does not require Force to defend Anheuser against claims and suits; neither does it require Force to indemnify Anheuser for the costs it incurs in defense of baseless claims. Cause is an operative, limiting term in this indemnity provision; it requires Force to pay all costs and expenses incurred by Anheuser in defending claims and suits for injuries if--but only if--such injuries are actually caused by an act or omission of Force. 12 A careful parsing of the subject clause confirms that conclusion. Such an examination begins with the indemnity clause's general identification of that for which Anheuser is to be indemnified: claims and suits by the parties and third parties. Next, the clause limits the claims and suits covered to those for damages to property and injuries to persons. Skipping over the language that limits the claims to those, such as here, with a nexus to the work covered by the contract of which the clause ia a part, we encounter a list of the elements of the claims and suits for which Anheuser is to be indemnified: judgments recovered therefor, and all expenses of defending the claims and suits. 13 At this point in our dissection of the clause, we encounter--albeit somewhat attenuated due to the archaic, run-on drafting techniques employed--the words caused by the act or omission of [Force]. Force's causation applies to that for which it must indemnify Anheuser: claims and suits, all judgments recovered on such claims and suits, and all costs and expenses of defending such claims and suits. 12 But which claims and suits? Those for personal injury and property damage. Beyond peradventure, then, that which must be caused by the act or omission of Force are those very same injuries and damages. 14 Conversely, as the suits and claims are first defined as those by the parties and third parties, caused by could never be read to modify claims and suits. The assertion of a claim or suit by Anheuser or a third party could not be caused by an act or omission of Force unless those parties were mere marionettes controlled by Force. Caused by can only refer to injuries and damages. 15 In effect, Anheuser itself recognized the causality requirement in its pleadings. In its First Amended Third Party Action Against Force Corporation, Anheuser describes the indemnity clause as an indemnification agreement whereby FORCE agrees to indemnify and hold harmless BUSCH from all claims and suits and from all judgments recovered therefore, and from all expenses (including court costs and attorney's fees) caused by the act or omission of Force. More obtusely, but no less certainly, this allegation confirms that indemnity lies only if it relates to injuries and damages caused by Force. Clearly, a baseless claim (as McDaniel's turned out to be) alleging fault regarding Switch # 23 cannot be said to have been caused by Force or anyone else but McDaniel. It is the injury, not the claim or suit, which must be caused by Force to trigger indemnification under this unique, limited clause. 16 Before Anheuser can recover its defense costs and expenses from Force, it must establish that an act or omission of Force's caused the injuries for which McDaniel brought suit. Mere allegations of causation and responsibility are insufficient, even in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. 13 To its irreversible detriment, Anheuser failed to establish this indispensable causal link in the trial of McDaniel's claims. Therefore, Anheuser is not entitled to a second opportunity to establish causation. The procedural maneuverings of the parties must be examined in detail to see how and why this happened.
17 McDaniel originally filed his suit because he sustained injuries while working for the Railroad in Anheuser's railyard. In his Complaint, McDaniel alleged that Anheuser was liable for his injuries because it was guilty of various acts of omission and commission, all of which were negligence as that term is known in the law, that proximately caused his injuries. 14 McDaniel did not allege any form of either strict liability or products liability against Anheuser and did not name Force at all. 18 Anheuser then impleaded Force as a third party defendant, alleging contractual indemnity, contribution, and commonlaw indemnity for any liability to McDaniel resulting from acts of Force's employees or agents. Force subsequently filed a counterclaim against Anheuser for commonlaw contribution and indemnity, adopting by reference, and pleading against Anheuser, all of McDaniel's original allegations. 19 Rule 13(a) describes a compulsory counterclaim as any claim which at the time of the serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. 15 A counterclaim is compulsory when both the original claim and the counterclaim arise from the same aggregate of operative facts. 16 By the time this case proceeded to trial, Anheuser was the subject of claims, cross-claims, 17 and counterclaims regarding McDaniel's injuries that had occurred in the Anheuser railyard. Consequently, any counterclaim by Anheuser against Force that arose out of this occurrence necessarily had to be brought in the instant suit or be barred. A counterclaim which is compulsory but is not brought is thereafter barred. 18 20
21 Shortly before the trial on McDaniel's claim was to begin, Force filed a motion entitled Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Severance/Motion for Separate Trial. Anheuser agreed with the motion provided that Force remained in the first trial on the contribution claim. The trial court ordered that Defendant Force Corporation's Motion for Severance/Motion for Separate Trial be granted. 22 We note initially that motions for severance and motions for separate trial are distinct and preferably should be treated as such. 19 Upon close analysis we find that, despite the ambiguous title of the instant motion and its equally ambiguous treatment by the district court, a separate trial rather than a severance was sought and granted. Force's motion contained a reference to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs separate trials, but contained no reference to Rule 21, which governs severances. Also, the motion tracked the language of Rule 42(b) when it stated that the ordering of separate trials in this matter would be more conducive to judicial expediency and economy. And even after the motion was granted, the subsequent proceedings for both trials continued to bear the same docket number. 23 Under Rule 42(b), a separate trial may be ordered in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy ... always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States. 20 Separation of issues, however, is not the usual course that should be followed. 21 24 There is an important limitation on ordering a separate trial of issues under Rule 42(b): the issue to be tried must be so distinct and separate from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice. 22 This limitation on the use of bifurcation is a recognition of the fact that inherent in the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a trial by jury is the general right of a litigant to have only one jury pass on a common issue of fact. 23 This rule has an additional, pragmatic basis--if two juries were allowed to pass on an issue involving the same factual and legal elements, the verdicts rendered by those juries could be inconsistent, producing intolerably anomalous results. 24 25 Both the parties and the district court appear to have recognized the separate and distinct prerequisite for separate trials. In its motion, Force recites that the issues to be litigated and resolved between it and Third-Party Plaintiff Busch, are completely independent and separate from those to be litigated in the primary lawsuit initiated by McDaniel against the Railroad and Busch. The motion further recites that the ordering of separate trials in this matter would be more conducive to judicial expediency and economy. All points of contention specifically addressed in Force's motion are contractual issues; causation of the underlying tort claim is not mentioned at all. 25 26 Anheuser went along with Force's motion to try the contractual indemnity issue separately. At the motion hearing, counsel for Anheuser stated: Yes, we do agree with severing the contractual, Your Honor. We're going to keep them in with the contribution claim ... and if there is a contractual obligation we will pursue that later on. 26 27 At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the district judge noted: I believe the record reflects there are no objections to a motion for separate trial on the issue of the contractual liability or indemnity question between Anheuser-Busch and Force, and so that motion will be granted. 28 It is clear that the parties and the district court intended to try separately only issues arising from the contractual relationship between Anheuser and Force, including those relating to the disputed indemnity clause. Nevertheless, Force was to remain in the primary trial, and that trial was to decide McDaniel's tort claims. Causation of McDaniel's injuries was an essential element of his tort claim. Indisputably, the causation findings by the jury in that trial would also be the centerpiece of the second trial; causation could not be tried anew in the second trial. Under Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., 27 if the first jury decides the causation issue, the second jury cannot consider that same issue. 28 E. Submission to the Jury
29 As noted, this case was submitted to the jury in special verdict form, pursuant to Rule 49(a). The use of a special verdict requires the jury to return a written finding on each submitted issue of fact. Of particular importance to the instant case are the rules governing waiver with respect to special interrogatories and instructions. Rule 49(a) provides in pertinent part: 30 If ... the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. 29 31 Rule 51, which governs instructions to the jury and objections to jury instructions, similarly provides in part: 32 At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that he court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests.... No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. 30 33 A party has the burden to request the submission of its issues to the jury and to request instructions on each such issue. If a party neither requests submission of an issue nor objects to the omission of that issue from the special interrogatories given to the jury, such party is deemed to have waived its right to have the jury determine that issue. 31 Likewise, failure to object to the wording of a special issue prevents a party from objecting to such wording on appeal. 32 Conversely, by requesting the submission of a special issue, a party prevents an adverse Rule 49(a) deemed finding by the court in the event that the requested issue is refused. 33 34 A party must inform the trial court of deficiencies in the charge in such a manner that the judge can act upon the objection. 34 Without more, a pretrial request for instructions or interrogatories is ordinarily insufficient to preserve error; theories of liability and defense frequently change during the course of a trial, and a trial judge will seldom make a final decision regarding the charge until the evidence is complete. 35 35 When, as here, an issue of causation is omitted from the jury charge and the trial court makes no specific finding regarding cause, that court will be deemed to have found proximate causation if such a finding is supported by the evidence and is consistent with the judgment. 36 36 Nevertheless, the requirement that a party request or object in order to prevent an adverse deemed finding is not absolute. This court has refused to deem the existence of a disputed fact where it appear[ed] that the district court, without objection by either party, specifically chose not to submit the issue to the jury. 37 Additionally, we will invoke the plain error doctrine to prevent a miscarriage of justice despite a party's failure to make a sufficiently specific objection under Rule 51. 38 These limited exceptions are inapplicable to the instant case, however; the issue of causation by Force was submitted to the jury, albeit in a conditioned form, and we find no fundamental error in the charge that could result in a miscarriage of justice. 37
38 The charge submitted to the jury in the trial of McDaniel's claims included the following special interrogatories and instructions: 39 Instruction 16 In order to find AnheuserBusch liable to the Plaintiff, you must find by a preponderance of the evidence the following: First: That AnheuserBusch had actual or constructive knowledge of some unreasonable risk of harm to McDaniel; Second: That AnheuserBusch did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or to eliminate the risk of harm to McDaniel; and Third: That AnheuserBusch's failure to use such care proximately caused McDaniel's personal injuries. Question 2 Did the negligence, if any, of those named below proximately cause the injury in question? Answer Yes or No for each of the following: AnheuserBusch, Inc. No Harold McDaniel Yes Question 3 For each person found by you to have caused the injury in question, find the percentage caused by-- AnheuserBusch, Inc. 0 % Harold McDaniel 100 % Railroad 0 % Total 100 % If in answer to Question 2 you have found that the negligence of AnheuserBusch caused the injury in question, then answer the following Questions, otherwise do not answer the following Questions. Question 4 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question that Force Corporation failed to perform the switch maintenance requested by AnheuserBusch on Switch # 23? Answer Yes or No. Answer: ________ Question 5 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question that such a failure, if any, was negligent? Answer Yes or No. Answer: ________ Question 6 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries? Answer Yes or No. Answer: ________ If you have answered Question 6 Yes and only in that event, then answer the following Question. Question 7 For each person found by you to have proximately caused the injury in question, find the percentage caused by-- AnheuserBusch, Inc. ____ % Force Corporation ____ % Total 100 % 40 McDaniel originally pleaded a broad based negligence claim against Anheuser 39 but by the time the case was submitted to the jury, Anheuser had succeeded in narrowing McDaniel's claim to one grounded only in a theory of land occupier liability. Under Texas law, a suit based on land occupier liability is a simple negligence action. 40 Therefore, when McDaniel's tort claim was finally submitted to the jury, Anheuser's contribution claim against Force was limited to whether Force's maintenance of switch # 23 was negligent. 41 41 Under Texas law, a premises occupier who hires an independent contractor to maintain the property in safe condition is not relieved of liability for the negligent maintenance of the property. 42 In keeping with that maxim, and of significance to this appeal, the jury charge actually submitted was so structured that the jury could not assign any causation to Force unless and until it first assigned some percentage of causation to Anheuser. 42
43 The record is devoid of requested and refused special issues or interrogatories. Only one instruction that was requested and refused is found, and it is not germane to the issue here under consideration. 43 There is no evidence that any objection to the interrogatories or instructions was made. Undoubtedly, Anheuser could have made any number of requests or objections to ensure that the McDaniel jury would address causation with regard to Force, including an objection to the conditioning of questions relating to the liability of Anheuser and Force. 44 An objection complying with the requirements of Rule 51 is required to preserve error regarding improper conditioning. 44 If an issue goes unanswered as a result of its conditional submission after the proponent of the issue has failed to object to that conditional submission, and the trial court makes no express finding on that issue, then under Rule 49(a) the trial court will be deemed to have found on that issue in accord with the judgment. 45 45 Questions regarding Force's causation were submitted to the jury conditionally, without objection by Anheuser. Faithfully following the conditioning instructions, the jury did not answer the questions directly pertaining to Force's causation. In the questions that were answered by the jury, McDaniel was found to have been the sole cause of his own injuries. 46 Anheuser correctly points out that the jury did not affirmatively find a lack of causation by Force. Anheuser had the burden under Rules 49(a) and 51, however, to ensure that its issues (including causation by Force) were properly submitted to the jury in such a manner that the jury could and would decide those issues. Having failed to do so, Anheuser has waived its right to have any jury determine the issue of causation by Force. 47 As Anheuser waived its right to a jury determination of the causation issue, Rule 49(a) would have permitted the trial court to make a finding on that issue. Anheuser again correctly points out that the court made no express findings with regard to causation by Force. The court did, however, enter a take-nothing judgment for McDaniel based on the jury findings. 46 48 The plain language of Rule 49(a) provides that the court may make a finding on a given issue if it is omitted [from the jury charge] without such demand. 47 The district court is not obligated to make express findings on any such issue. Rule 49(a) further provides, however, that if the district court does not make express findings it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. 48 Under the circumstances of the instant case, the district court is deemed to have found Force to be free of causation, just as the jury found Anheuser and the Railroad free of causation. All of this is totally consistent with the judgment of the court. 49 But we need not rest our affirmation on the fiction of a deemed finding here, however. The jury implicitly found Force free of causation when it found Anheuser free of causation. 50 Although Anheuser's reasoning for its actions regarding the severance and the submission of the charge is not stated in the record or in Anheuser's brief to this court, it appears to have been part of a trial strategy that was, after all, substantially effective. By the time Force made its motion for separate trial, the Railroad had already entered into a Mary Carter agreement with McDaniel. 49 The other defendants--Anheuser and Force--apparently acted in concert to present a unified opposition to McDaniel's claims and to narrow the jurors' focus in their determination of liability. 51 Even though the manner in which the charge and special interrogatories were submitted eventuated to Anheuser's detriment on the contractual indemnity issue, it did prevent the jurors from considering anything other than a narrowly defined land occupier liability theory when they determined whether Anheuser was liable. Furthermore, obvious trial strategy suggests that if the jury directly considered the conduct of both Anheuser and Force and found Force partially liable, it would also almost certainly assign some liability to Anheuser. 52 Ironically, Anheuser cannot prevail in the instant action because its strategy against McDaniel worked so well. If the jury had found that Anheuser caused any percentage of McDaniel's injuries, Anheuser would not be in its present position. As the situation stands, Anheuser will not recover the $47,241.74 it was seeking from Force, but neither did it have to pay any of the over $1,128,000.00 sought by McDaniel. Considering the results, we cannot categorically state that Anheuser's actions were ill considered. If, on the other hand, we have erroneously construed a lack of foresight as clever strategy, Anheuser would be even less deserving of sympathy. Either way, however, we find Anheuser deserving of no indemnification for the expense of its eminently successful defense of claims of injury not found to have been caused by the indemnitor. III