A recent court filing has thrust a high-profile off-road race incident into the legal spotlight, challenging the boundaries of indemnity agreements and defense obligations. On June 27, 2024, Morgan Langley filed a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, against Promote Mexico, LLC and its alleged owner Roger Norman. Langley is contesting a trial court's decision that he must defend Promote Mexico from claims arising from an accident during the 2018 Baja 1000 race.
The case stems from an incident at the 2018 Baja 1000 off-road race where Langley allegedly struck Magda Angel, a spokesmodel for Monster Energy Company (Monster), with his race vehicle. Prior to participating in the race, Langley signed a "General Waiver, Release, Consent and Indemnification Agreement" with Promote Mexico. This release purportedly required Langley to defend and indemnify Promote Mexico and its affiliates from any claims resulting from his participation in the event. However, when Angel filed a complaint on August 12, 2019, naming Monster, Langley, COPS Racing LLC (affiliated with Langley), and Langley Productions Inc., as defendants—and later adding Promote Mexico and Norman—legal complexities ensued.
Promote Mexico's cross-complaint argued that under the release agreement signed by Langley, he was obligated to defend and indemnify them against Angel’s claims. They also contended that by filing cross-complaints for implied indemnity and contribution against them, Langley breached this agreement. Conversely, Langley's cross-complaint sought indemnity from Promote Mexico on grounds that they were not at fault for Angel’s injuries.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of Promote Mexico on several issues related to Langley's duty to defend but found that issues regarding indemnity were premature since liability had not been established. The court also denied summary adjudication on insurance coverage disputes due to factual uncertainties about whether the accident occurred within or outside the official racecourse.
Langley's petition argues that the trial court erred in interpreting the release agreement. He contends that while he agreed to defend against claims brought by himself or individuals affiliated with him (such as team members or family), this did not extend to third-party claims like those made by Angel. The appellate court concurred with this interpretation upon review.
The appellate court concluded that although the language of the release was ambiguous and somewhat inconsistent in parts of its application by the trial court, it ultimately did not obligate Langley to defend Promote Mexico against third-party claims such as those brought by Angel or Monster. Consequently, they granted Langley's writ petition.
Langley's legal team comprises Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Christopher Blanchard, and Bryan C. Swaim from Bordin Semmer LLP. Representing Promote Mexico are Kendra J. Hall, John D. Alessio, Sean M. Sullivan, and Zagros S. Bassirian from Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. The case is presided over by Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki under Case ID B333431.