of a reasonable person when he looks at it. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 508. However, that require ment is not necessary when the indemnitor — here, Sydlik — possessed actual notice or knowledge of the indemnity agreement. Id. at 508 n. 2. Stated differently, actual notice may serve as a substitute for the conspicuousness prong of the fair notice doctrine. In this case, both conspicuousness and actual notice are present. The document is only one page with only three paragraphs. It states in large, bolded, underlined letters at the top of the page that it is an agreement and a release. Additionally, Sydlik initialed each paragraph. It was conspicuous. See generally Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 20 S.W.3d 119, 126 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Sydlik admitted in her
recognizing that an indemnity provision and an agreement to provide insurance are separate and distinct obligations holding that an indemnity agreement less than two and onehalf pages containing eight paragraphs referenced in two other paragraphs which the party read was conspicuous holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question holding that strickland was violated when the defendants counsel among many other deficiencies met with his client in a capital case for less than two hours holding that an eight and onehalf month delay was enough to warrant further inquiry