Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 255 (Tex. 1987), Ethyl argued that the language "any loss . . . as a result of operations growing out of the performance of this contract and caused by the negligence or carelessness of the Contractor" in the indemnity provision was intended to include the negligence of the indemnitee. Ethyl Corp., 725 S.W.2d at 708 .

The supreme court held that the language did not clearly indicate such an intention and the demands of express negligence would not allow such an attenuated interpretation. Id.