Opinion ID: 2429828
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Express Negligence Doctrine

Text: The trial court rendered summary judgment for respondents on the ground that the express negligence doctrine invalidates the additional insured provision of HB-5357. This common law doctrine, as stated in Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987), provides that: [P]arties seeking to indemnify the indemnitee from the consequences of its own negligence must express that intent in specific terms ... within the four corners of the contract. Although the court of appeals recognized that the express negligence doctrine has been applied only to contractual indemnity provisions, it reasoned as follows: Texas courts would undoubtedly extend this limitation to insurance provisions covering the indemnity obligation that purport to protect the indemnitee from the results of its sole negligence. 819 S.W.2d at 914. As discussed above, however, the additional insured provision of HB-5357 does not support an indemnity agreement. As amicus curiae Texas Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association points out, the express negligence doctrine in Texas has been applied only to indemnity provisions, not insurance-shifting provisions. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.1989); Gulf Coast Masonry, Inc. v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam); Singleton v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 729 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam); Whitson v. Goodbodys, Inc., 773 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.App.Dallas 1989, writ denied). We decline to extend the express negligence doctrine to contractual provisions other than indemnity agreements in this case, and we thus hold that this doctrine does not invalidate the additional insured provision of HB-5357.