Jerry L. Hamblin and Ricochet Energy, Inc. v. Thomas A. Lamont

Dissenting Opinion by:

REBECA C. MARTINEZ, Justice.

I agree with the majority’s assumption that Lamont was entitled to indemnity pursuant to the language of the Master Agreement. More specifically, I believe that Lamont was entitled to indemnity under the Prospective Indemnity clause because the liability Lamont incurred in the Vaquillas Lawsuit pertained to Ricochet and/or its operations, actions, and inac-tions. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the agreement’s failure to meet the requirements of the express negligence test renders the indemnity clauses unenforceable.

The…