American Petrofina v. Dorchester Gas

4 Citing cases

  1. DAVIS v. SINCLAIR REF

    704 S.W.2d 413 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 13 times
    In Davis v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 704 S.W.2d 413 (Tex.Ct.App. 1985), the court also rejected the plaintiff's dual persona argument.

    See also Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. 1980) (acceptance of workers' compensation benefits by employee barred wife's action for negligent impairment of consortium); American Petrofina, Inc. v. Dorchester Gas Corp., 685 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, writ granted) (surviving corporation liable for amount paid by predecessor in settlement of personal injury claim by surviving corporation's employee even though workers' compensation benefits accepted where two corporations had specific indemnity clause in merger agreement). Appellant elected his remedy against his employer, Arco.

  2. Verson Allsteel Press v. Carrier A.C

    718 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    In Verson the court held the statute did not require the indemnity agreement to include language which specifically referred to the indemnitor's employees.

    Eastman Kodak Co. v. Exxon, 603 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. 1980); Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Jefferson Construction Co., 565 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1978); Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 490 S.W.2d at 822; Phillips Pipeline Co. v. Richardson, 680 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex.App. โ€” El Paso 1984, no writ). In American Petrofina, Inc. v. Dorchester Gas Corp., 685 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App. โ€” Dallas 1985, writ granted), the Court reconciles the language of Section 3 with the general rules used in analyzing the sufficiency of indemnity agreements. The Court discusses in the Eastman Kodak decision the question of whether the "clear and unequivocal" rule applies when an indemnity agreement refers to injuries arising from the maintenance or operation of a specified instrumentality.

  3. Thomeier v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.

    928 F. Supp. 548 (W.D. Pa. 1996)   Cited 5 times
    Finding agreement did not meet requirements of ยง 481(b) because it did not predate the occurrence of the injury and did not have the requisite specificity

    The judge pointed to Texas precedent that, on language similar to the merger documents before the Davis court, had found a valid agreement by an employer to indemnify the party that had sold the workplace to the employer and was subsequently found liable in negligence to an employee. Id. at 418 (Sears, J., dissenting) (citing American Petrofina, Inc. v. Dorchester Gas Corp., 685 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 710 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. 1986)).

  4. Dorchester Gas Corp. v. American Petrofina, Inc.

    710 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    In Dorchester Gas Corp., Fina sold a refinery to Dorchester, a Dorchester employee was subsequently injured and collected workers' compensation benefits, and the worker and carrier then sued Fina. 710 S.W.2d at 541-42.

    After a trial without a jury, the trial court found that the clause was insufficient to cover the claim. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of Fina. 685 S.W.2d 723. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.