Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aerospatiale Helicopter Corp. v. Universal Health Services, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided August 25, 1989No. 05-88-00730-CVPublished

1DissentBaker, Justice

I respectfully dissent.

I would affirm the trial court’s judgment regarding indemnity because Aerospat-iale’s claim for indemnity was not within the scope of the indemnity clause of the lease agreement. The indemnity clause provided:

V. INDEMNITY: The LESSEE will indemnify and hold harmless the LESSOR, its agents, servants, and assigns from and against any and all losses, damages, injuries, claims, demands and expenses including legal expenses of whatsoever kind and nature arising on account of (i) the use or operation of the *504helicopter or any part thereof, by whomsoever used or operated other…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. DanielTexas Supreme Court · 1951
  2. R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Board of Insurance Commissioners v. Guardian Life InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Smith v. National Resort Communities, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1979

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API