Opinion ID: 895253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Fresh Coat a Seller Under Chapter 82?

Text: K-2 contends that even if EIFS is a product, Fresh Coat is not a seller. K-2 says Fresh Coat did not place EIFS into the stream of commerce since EIFS was applied to walls that were part of newly constructed homes. K-2 further characterizes Fresh Coat as a service provider, not a product seller, because Fresh Coat provided EIFS installation services. Fresh Coat acknowledges it provided EIFS installation services, but claims it was a product seller and a service provider, and that companies that do both may be considered product sellers under Chapter 82. In Chapter 82, seller is defined as a person who is engaged in the business of distributing or otherwise placing, for any commercial purpose, in the stream of commerce for use or consumption a product or any component part thereof. [9] Section 82.002(d) elaborates with regard to a manufacturer's duty to indemnify: For purposes of this section, a wholesale distributor or retail seller who completely or partially assembles a product in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions shall be considered a seller. We agree with the court of appeals that Chapter 82's definition of `seller' does not exclude a seller who is also a service provider, nor does it require the seller to only sell the product. [10] That approach is consistent with the Third Restatement of Torts, which recognizes that a product seller may also provide services. [11] We further agree with the court of appeals that Fresh Coat provided legally sufficient evidence that it is a product seller for purposes of Chapter 82. It is undisputed that Fresh Coat installed EIFS according to K-2's instructions. Moreover, K-2 trained and certified Fresh Coat personnel in the installation of its EIFS system. Under its contract with Life Forms, Fresh Coat was to provide labor, services and/or materials, equipment, transportation, or facilities necessary in order to provide synthetic stucco application and finish. As the court of appeals noted, witnesses testified that Fresh Coat was in the business of providing EIFS products combined with the service of EIFS installation. [12] The products K-2 sold to Fresh Coat included base coat, mesh, and finish coat. Chapter 82, like the Restatement, anticipates that a product seller may also provide services. Thus, we conclude that when a company contracts to provide a product that is alleged to be defective  like the EIFS system in this case  the company's installation services do not preclude it from also being a seller. Accordingly, as to indemnity for Fresh Coat's settlement with the homeowners, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment.