## Facts

- Owens & Minor, Inc. and Owens & Minor Medical, Inc. distributed latex gloves made by multiple manufacturers, including Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc. and Becton, Dickinson and Company.
- A dental hygienist, Kathy Burden, and her family sued Owens, Ansell, Becton, and many other entities, alleging Burden developed a Type I systemic latex allergy from defective gloves.
- Owens sought statutory defense and indemnity as an “innocent seller” under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.002.
- Ansell and Becton each offered to defend and indemnify Owens only for claims involving that manufacturer’s own gloves.
- Owens rejected the limited offers and demanded a complete defense and indemnity for all claims, with later allocation among manufacturers.
- The Burdens dismissed their claims against the manufacturers; Owens pursued indemnity cross-claims and settled with all defendants except Ansell and Becton.

## Issues

1. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.002, does a manufacturer satisfy its duty to indemnify an innocent seller by offering to defend and indemnify only for claims concerning its own product?
2. Or must a manufacturer provide the seller a complete defense and indemnity against all claims in a multi-manufacturer products-liability action, then seek contribution from other manufacturers?

## Decision

- On a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court answered that § 82.002 does not require a manufacturer to indemnify a seller for claims involving other manufacturers’ products.
- A manufacturer fulfills its § 82.002 obligation by offering to defend and indemnify the seller only for the portion of the case relating to the sale or alleged sale of that manufacturer’s product.
- The court’s answer validated the view that Ansell’s and Becton’s limited defense offers were sufficient under Texas law.

## Legal Principles

- Section 82.002 indemnity is product-specific: a manufacturer’s duty to defend and indemnify an innocent seller is limited to losses and defense costs associated with that manufacturer’s own product as alleged.
- The statute does not impose joint or global responsibility on one manufacturer to fund the seller’s entire defense in a suit involving multiple manufacturers’ products.
- Practical difficulty in allocating defense costs among multiple manufacturers does not expand § 82.002 beyond its product-based focus.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court held that, in a products-liability case involving multiple manufacturers, § 82.002 requires each manufacturer to defend and indemnify an innocent seller only to the extent the claims concern that manufacturer’s own product, not the entire lawsuit.


Owens & Minor, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc., 251 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. 2008)