In Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex. 1990), a wrongful death plaintiff sued Lone Star Gas Company within the two year limitations period. See id. at 4. After the running of limitations, Lone Star asserted a defect in parties. See id. Plaintiff then amended its pleadings to name Enserch Corporation, d/b/a Lone Star Gas Company as a defendant. See id. Enserch asserted the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. See id. The Texas Supreme Court categorized the case as one of misidentification, which necessarily requires a business relationship exist between the two defendants. See Parker, 794 S.W.2d at 5-6.The supreme court held that "an indemnity agreement need not be confined to one sentence" when it is clear that "the contract as a whole is sufficient to define the parties' intent that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for the consequences of the indemnitee's own negligence." Enserch, 794 S.W.2d at 8. The indemnity agreement in Enserch provided that "Christie would indemnify Enserch for any claims 'regardless of whether such claims are founded in whole or in part upon alleged negligence of Enserch.'" Id. The agreement further provided: "Christie 'further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Enserch . . . in respect to any such matters . . . .'" Id. The true intent of the clause was not concealed because the references to indemnification and negligence were made in separate sentences. See id.