The Texas Supreme Court has partially reversed a Houston [14th] Court of Appeal decision holding that arbitration and indemnity provisions in a release signed by a minor’s parent didn’t apply to non-signatory protected parties.
UATP Management, LLC; UATP IP, LLC; UA Attractions, LLC; Rachelle Nurse-Goodly; and Joseph Goodly v. Chiniqua Geter as next friend of K.G., a minor (No. 24-0905; October 16, 2026) arose from a child’s injury at a trampoline park in Beaumont. The child’s mother, who signed a release containing indemnity and arbitration provisions, sued the trampoline park and affiliated entities protected by the indemnity. Defendants moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals reversed as to the park on its motion to compel arbitration, but held against the other defendants who were non-signatories to the release. Defendants appealed, and SCOTX granted review.
In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed and remanded to the trial court. The release identified the non-signatory defendants as “protected parties” that Plaintiff agreed to release, not to sue, and to indemnify. Its arbitration provision did not include a designation of protected parties but applied to any claim arising out of the agreement. The court of appeals held that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement applied to the minor, whose mother had signed the release on her behalf.
Turning to the question of whether the release applied to the non-signatory protected parties, SCOTX held that the protected parties could compel arbitration as beneficiaries of the agreement. The Court made clear that this issue was for the Court, not the arbitrator, since it involved whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the minor and the protected parties. Here the arbitration and indemnity provisions of the release “demonstrate[d] the parties’ intent to benefit [the protected parties]” and “was entered into, in part, directly for [the non-signatory entities’] benefit.” Nor did the release exclude the protected parties or otherwise treat them differently than the park. Consequently, the Court concluded, “[a]s third-party beneficiaries of the agreement, the protected parties may invoke the arbitration provision.”
The Court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
