Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey Corporation, DR Holding Corporation, and Glen Whitworth v. El Dorado Chemical Company, and Oklahoma Corporation
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
07-606
INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, A
NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DR
HOLDING CORPORATION, AND
GLEN WHITWORTH,
APPELLANTS,
Opinion Delivered 4-17-08
APPEAL FROM THE UNION
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
CV-2005-0444-4, HON. CAROL
CRAFTON ANTHONY, JUDGE,
VS.
EL DORADO CHEMICAL COMPANY,
AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION,
APPELLEE,
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice
The appellants, Ingersoll-Rand Company, DR Holding Corporation, and Glen
Whitworth, appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee, El Dorado Chemical
Company (EDCC), in the amount of $9,796,218.37. The sole issue on appeal is whether the
circuit court erred in refusing to enforce a limitation-of-liability clause allegedly contained in
the contract between the parties. We affirm.
EDCC is a chemical manufacturing company that produces and supplies ammonium
nitrate fertilizers, industrial grade explosives, and industrial acids at its manufacturing facility
in El Dorado. Within the manufacturing facility, EDCC operates four nitric acid production
plants, one of which is the plant at issue, the DMW plant.
In 2004, EDCC initiated maintenance plans for the DMW plant, and as part of those
plans, an Ingersoll-Rand E-516 Expander was scheduled to be repaired and rebuilt. An
expander is a piece of equipment used in nitric acid production. As part of the production
process, gas is forced through the expander, which causes blades within the expander to
rotate. The expander, in turn, generates horsepower to operate other equipment within the
plant. EDCC solicited proposals from various vendors for the repair and rebuilding of the E516 Expander. On June 25, 2004, Dresser-Rand Company, a partnership, submitted a
proposal in which it promised to complete fifteen specific repair items and to supply three
new parts1 for the price of $119,845. Appellants Ingersoll-Rand Company and DR Holding
Company are the general partners of Dresser-Rand Company.
On July 12, 2004, EDCC accepted Dresser-Rand’s proposal and issued a purchase
order for Dresser-Rand to rebuild the E-516 Expander for the proposed price. Dresser-Rand
accepted EDCC’s purchase order and faxed EDCC a letter explaining that EDCC must agree
to Dresser-Rand’s “Terms of Sale and Conditions for Parts And Equipment” by signing and
returning the letter to Dresser-Rand before the repair and rebuilding would begin. The letter
specifically read:
Dresser-Rand Company will not start any work on your order unless and until
either: (1) you first agree by signing and returning this letter within ten (10)
days that this transaction will be governed exclusively by the Dresser-Rand
Company’s Terms of Sale and Conditions for Parts And Equipment as printed
on the back of this letter; or (2) we negotiate and both sign an Agreement
containing mutually acceptable terms and conditions. Any terms and
conditions submitted by Buyer’s inquiry or purchase order, or any other
document shall have no effect.
In its proposal, Dresser-Rand promised to supply new scroll pins, new stator housing
pins, and all sealants.
1
-2-
07-606
Nothing, however, was printed on the back of the letter. EDCC signed and returned
the letter. EDCC never received a document entitled “Terms of Sale and Conditions for
Parts And Equipment.”2 EDCC did receive a faxed document from Dresser-Rand entitled
“Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and Repairs” at the same time as the letter,
but EDCC never signed or returned that document to Dresser-Rand.
As requested by EDCC, Dresser-Rand removed the E-516 Expander from the DMW
plant, transported the expander to Dresser-Rand’s facility in Oklahoma for the repair and
rebuilding, and returned and reinstalled the repaired expander to the DMW plant. On
October 8, 2004, the E-516 Expander failed and ultimately fell apart during operation. The
expander was destroyed, and in the process, an oil line attached to the expander leaked oil
onto hot equipment. A fire began, and the DMW plant was destroyed. After the E-516
Expander failed, EDCC removed a second expander, the E-520 Expander, which DresserRand had rebuilt earlier in 2004, from storage where it had been stored for use as a spare.
EDCC sent the E-520 Expander to a second maintenance company, Sulzer Hickham, Inc.,
for inspection. Sulzer Hickham discovered that the work performed on the E-520 Expander
was deficient as well.
On August 7, 2006, EDCC filed a Second Amended Complaint against IngersollRand Company and DR Holding Corporation, the general partners of Dresser-Rand, and
against Glen Whitworth, Dresser-Rand’s shop superintendent in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and John
A document with this title was not introduced into evidence at trial.
2
-3-
07-606
Does 1 - 10, unknown employees of Dresser-Rand (collectively referred to as IngersollRand). The complaint alleged that Ingersoll-Rand was negligent in the repairing and
rebuilding of the E-516 Expander as well as the E-520 Expander and that Ingersoll-Rand’s
negligence caused EDCC to suffer a loss of property due to the fire at the DMW plant. The
complaint further alleged that EDCC lost production of nitric acid during the time that the
fire damage to the DMW plant was being repaired, which resulted in lost profits, and also that
EDCC suffered damages by having to pay for the E-520 Expander to be rebuilt a second
time. EDCC asserted in its complaint that Ingersoll-Rand was liable under theories of
negligence and strict liability, and it sought damages of over $10,000,000.
Ingersoll-Rand answered the complaint by raising an affirmative defense that a
limitation-of-liability clause set out in the “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and
Repairs” faxed to EDCC at the same time as the June 13, 2004 letter limited its liability to
the amount of the contract price. Ingersoll-Rand then filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, in which it argued that before Dresser-Rand began the repair and rebuilding of the
E-516 Expander, EDCC had accepted Dresser-Rand’s terms and conditions, which contained
the limitation-of-liability clause limiting Ingersoll-Rand’s liability to the amount of the
contract price, $119,845. Ingersoll-Rand sought a partial summary judgment denying all of
EDCC’s damage claims exceeding $119,845. The circuit court held a hearing on the partialsummary-judgment motion, following which it entered an order denying the motion. In its
order, the circuit court refused to find as a matter of law that the contract between the parties
limited Ingersoll-Rand’s liability and ruled that there were issues of fact regarding the contract
-4-
07-606
that should be decided by a jury. Specifically, the circuit court said: “The Court does not
find as a matter of law that the contract between the parties limits the liability of the
defendants. There exist genuine issues of material fact to be decided by a jury.”3
On October 4, 2006, EDCC moved to prohibit introduction of evidence at trial
regarding the limitation-of-liability clause. Ingersoll-Rand also filed a motion in limine to
exclude evidence of any damages over the contract price. On October 9, 2006, before the
trial began, the circuit court ruled that any evidence of the limitation-of-liability clause in the
alleged contract could not be presented to the jury. The circuit court also denied IngersollRand’s motion in limine. The circuit court did allow Ingersoll-Rand to introduce the
document entitled “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and Repairs” into
evidence with the limitation-of-liability clause redacted. At trial, Ingersoll-Rand also moved
for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case and at the close of all evidence to limit
damages to the contract amount of $119,845. Both motions were denied.
On October 12, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of EDCC in the amount
of $9,796,218.37. EDCC filed a Motion for Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest. The
circuit court denied EDCC’s motion for prejudgment interest and entered a judgment on
November 13, 2006, conforming to the jury’s verdict and adding postjudgment interest. A
corrected judgment was entered on November 14, 2006, which stated that the claims against
Ingersoll-Rand, DR Holding Corporation, and Glen Whitworth had been fully tried and that
One of the EDCC arguments made to the trial court and referred to in its order was
that the terms and conditions were not on the back of the letter received.
3
-5-
07-606
all other parties were dismissed. Ingersoll-Rand moved to modify the amount of the
judgment from $9,796,218.37 to $119,845, which was denied by the circuit court. IngersollRand filed a notice of appeal, and EDCC filed a notice of cross-appeal.4
Ingersoll-Rand now claims as its sole point on appeal that the circuit court erred by
refusing to enforce the limitation-of-liability clause contained in the asserted contract between
the parties. Ingersoll-Rand initially contends that the clause is an enforceable exculpatory
provision and that it is not contrary to public policy. Ingersoll-Rand acknowledges that
exculpatory clauses are usually strictly construed against the parties relying on them but insists
that strict construction is inapplicable in this case because both EDCC and Dresser-Rand are
sophisticated and experienced business enterprises and that the contract in question was an
arms-length transaction fairly entered into by both parties. Ingersoll-Rand advances the
notion that EDCC was not forced into accepting Dresser-Rand’s terms and conditions but
rather was invited to negotiate with Dresser-Rand, if EDCC chose not to agree with those
terms and conditions. Hence, Ingersoll-Rand maintains that the elements required for the
enforcement of an exculpatory clause are satisfied in this case. Moreover, Ingersoll-Rand
urges that since EDCC knew of the liability that was being limited, EDCC stood to benefit
from Dresser-Rand’s work on the E-516 Expander because of the reduced cost. In short, it
argues that the contract was freely and fairly entered into by the parties.
EDCC’s notice of cross-appeal specified that EDCC was appealing from the circuit
court’s order and judgment denying prejudgment interest. EDCC’s motion to withdraw the
cross-appeal was granted on October 2, 2007.
4
-6-
07-606
We begin by acknowledging that the limitation-of-liability clause is clearly an
exculpatory provision. An exculpatory provision “is one where a party seeks to absolve
himself in advance of the consequences of his own negligence.” Jordan v. Diamond Equipment
& Supply Co., 362 Ark. 142, 148, 207 S.W.3d 525, 530 (2005). Exculpatory provisions are
not favored by the law due to the strong public policy of encouraging the exercise of care.
See Jordan, supra. However, exculpatory provisions are not invalid per se. See id. This court
has explained:
Because of the disfavor with which exculpatory contracts are viewed, two rules
of construction apply to them. First, they are to be strictly construed against
the party relying on them. Second, we have said that it is not impossible to
avoid liability for negligence through contract, but that, to avoid such liability,
the contract must at least clearly set out what negligent liability is to be avoided.
Further, we have held that when we are reviewing such a contract, we are not
restricted to the literal language of the contract, and we will also consider the
facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the release in order to
determine the intent of the parties.
Id. at 149, 207 S.W.3d at 530 (internal citations omitted).
In addition, this court has recognized three requirements for the enforcement of an
exculpatory provision:
[A]n exculpatory clause may be enforced: (1) when the party is knowledgeable
of the potential liability that is released; (2) when the party is benefitting from
the activity which may lead to the potential liability that is released; and (3)
when the contract that contains the clause was fairly entered into.
Finagin v. Arkansas Dev. Fin. Auth., 355 Ark. 440, 458, 139 S.W.3d 797, 808 (2003).
Bearing our jurisprudence relating to the disfavor in which exculpatory clauses are held
in mind, we turn to the issue of whether the limitation-of-liability clause, which was
-7-
07-606
contained in the document entitled “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and
Repairs,” was part of the contract between EDCC and Dresser-Rand. The facts surrounding
this issue are undisputed. As already related, on July 13, 2004, Dresser-Rand faxed EDCC
a letter explaining that before work on the E-516 Expander could begin, EDCC was required
to sign and return the letter indicating acceptance of the “Terms of Sale and Conditions for
Parts And Equipment” as printed on the back of the letter. Those terms and conditions,
however, were not printed on the back of the letter, but instead a document entitled “Terms
and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and Repairs” was faxed as a separate document with
the letter. EDCC signed the letter and returned it to Dresser-Rand, but did not sign and
return the document entitled “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field Services and Repairs.”
Thus, the issue before this court is whether the asserted letter agreement by Ingersoll-Rand
properly included the provisions contained in the “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field
Services and Repairs.”
When a contract refers to another writing and makes the terms of that writing a part
of the contract, the two documents become a single agreement between the parties and must
be construed together. See F & M Bldg. Partnership v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 316 Ark. 60,
871 S.W.2d 338 (1994); see also 11 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 30:25 (4th ed.
1999). In order to incorporate a separate document by reference into a contract, “the
reference must be clear and unequivocal, and the terms of the incorporated document must
be known or easily available to the contracting parties.” 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 316 (1999).
The document to be incorporated “must be described in such terms that its identity may be
-8-
07-606
ascertained beyond reasonable doubt.” Id; see also Lord, supra. Furthermore, “it must be clear
that the parties to the agreement had knowledge of and assented to the incorporated
terms . . . .” Lord, supra, at 234.
There are virtually no cases in Arkansas discussing what is required for a document to
be properly incorporated into a contract by reference. Other states, however, have addressed
the issue, and a majority of states have concluded that the contract must clearly and specifically
reference the document to be incorporated. See, e.g., Kleveland v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 46
Cal. Rptr. 3d 314, 316 (Cal. App. 2006) (“Incorporation by reference requires that (1) the
reference to another document was clear and unequivocal; (2) the reference was called to the
attention of the other party, who consented to that term; and (3) the terms of the
incorporated documents were known or easily available to the contracting parties.”); Western
Washington Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 7 P.3d 861 (Wash. App. 2000)
(incorporation by reference must be clear and unequivocal, and it must be clear that parties
to agreement had knowledge of and consented to incorporated terms) (quoting Lord, supra);
Estate of Kokjohn v. Harrington, 531 N.W.2d 99 (Iowa 1995) (per curiam) (recognizing that the
“common thread” throughout cases from other jurisdictions regarding incorporation by
reference was the requirement that the reference be clear and specific; Iowa Supreme Court
adopted such a requirement for the first time); Prichard v. Clay, 780 P.2d 359, 361 (Alaska
1989) (with regards to an incorporated document, “[p]arties do not undertake obligations
contained in a separate document unless their contract clearly says so.”).
-9-
07-606
In the case at hand, the document entitled “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field
Services and Repairs,” which contained the limitation-of-liability clause, was not properly
incorporated into the parties’ contract based on the authority cited above. It may have been
Dresser-Rand’s intent to incorporate the above-titled document into the July 13, 2004 letter,
but it failed to do so with the requisite clarity and specificity. The letter specifically requested
that EDCC agree to the “Terms of Sale and Conditions for Parts And Equipment” as printed
on the back of the letter, but nothing was printed on the back of the letter, and the terms and
conditions that EDCC received were not titled the same way as the letter described.
Accordingly, the inclusion of the terms and conditions containing the limitation-of-liability
clause was not clear and unequivocal, and the identity of the terms and conditions was not
ascertainable beyond a reasonable doubt due to the letter’s misstatement of the document’s
title. Coupled with the disfavor with which this court views exculpatory provisions, we
conclude that the limitation-of-liability clause was not incorporated by reference into the
contract between EDCC and Dresser-Rand. Because the limitation-of-liability clause was
not clearly and specifically made part of the parties’ contract, the circuit court did not err by
refusing to enforce it as a matter of law.5
Ingersoll-Rand argues in its brief to this court that regardless of how the terms and
conditions were titled, the letter specifically identified the terms and conditions attached to
the letter as “Per Dresser-Rand Form DR120 attached,” and that the form number DR120
was printed on the lower right corner of the terms and conditions faxed along with the letter.
However, it appears that this argument was not raised to the circuit court, and, thus, this
court will not address it. See Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, __ S.W.3d __ (2007). In any event,
this slight reference to the terms and conditions is not enough to incorporate the document
in light of the misstated title in the body of the letter.
5
-10-
07-606
Ingersoll-Rand relies heavily in its brief on appeal and in oral argument on the
testimony during its cross-examination of David McDonald, maintenance manager at the
DMW plant. McDonald testified that a document called “terms and conditions” came by fax
together with a letter from Dresser-Rand. He responded in the affirmative that part of the
letter that he signed said that he had to sign the letter and “acknowledge” the terms and
conditions before Dresser-Rand would begin work on the E-516 Expander. Ingersoll-Rand
urges that this testimony conclusively decides the incorporation-by-reference issue and
constitutes an admission by a representative of EDCC that liability was limited. IngersollRand reads too much into this one question and answer.
We dispute that
“acknowledgement” of receipt of the terms and conditions meant that EDCC agreed to be
bound by all the terms and conditions in the separate document. At the very least,
“acknowledgment” is an ambiguous term in this context. More needed to be done to
establish limitation of liability as part of the contract as a matter of law.
This leads to a second point that bears mention. EDCC sued Ingersoll-Rand in tort
for the damage to its plant, and Ingersoll-Rand raised the terms and conditions with the clause
limiting liability as an affirmative defense. As a result, when the circuit court refused to
enforce the clause as part of the parties’ contract as a matter of law and referred to genuine
issues of material fact to be decided by the jury, it was Ingersoll-Rand’s responsibility to
present the issue of whether the provisions of the “Terms and Conditions of Sale – Field
Services and Repairs” were part of the parties’ contract to the jury. This could have been
done by special interrogatory. Had the jury determined that these terms and conditions were
-11-
07-606
part of the contract, the circuit court would have had a firm basis upon which to reduce the
jury’s award to the contract amount of $119,845. This, however, was not done by IngersollRand, even though issues of fact relating to contract formation are clearly questions for the
jury. See Clark v. Ridgeway, 323 Ark. 378, 914 S.W.2d 745 (1996); see also Lord, supra, § 30:3.
The same holds true with respect to Ingersoll-Rand’s questioning of the damage award
by the jury. A special verdict form could have been submitted to the jury breaking down the
elements of the damages awarded. This too was not done.
We hold that the circuit court did not err in refusing to limit Ingersoll-Rand’s liability
as a matter of law. Because we hold as we do, it is unnecessary to address EDCC’s alternative
grounds for affirmance regarding breach of warranty and partner liability.
Affirmed.
IMBER, J., not participating.
-12-
07-606
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.