In Banner Sign & Barricade, Inc. v. Price Construction, Inc., 94 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied), Banner provided barricades, signs, and traffic devices to Price pursuant to a subcontract. Id. at 697. After a two-vehicle construction site accident, the plaintiffs sued Price. Id. at 694. Price then joined Banner in the action as a responsible third party, alleging that it was entitled to indemnification. Id. The trial court severed the indemnification and negligence cases. Id. A jury subsequently found Price 80% responsible for the accident, the other driver 20% responsible, and Banner 0% responsible. Id. The trial court then granted summary judgment to Price on the indemnification claim against Banner. Id. Affirming the trial court's judgment, our sister court held that Banner had not raised a genuine fact issue as to whether the indemnification clause covered the accident at issue. Id. at 697. The indemnification clause at issue there "covered all claims and injuries of any nature whatsoever 'arising in any manner, directly or indirectly, out of or in connection with or in the course of or incidental to, any of Banner's work or operations hereunder or in connection herewith.'" Id. Price had contracted with Banner to provide barricades, signs, and traffic devices, and crucially, the plaintiffs' petition in that case "included a claim for 'the supplying of inadequate and inappropriate materials to be used as warning devices.'" Id. Therefore, the court held, the claims asserted by the plaintiffs were subject to the indemnification provision. Id.