in larger or other contrasting type or color. But in a telegram any stated term is “conspicuous”. Id. at 510-11 (citing Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 1.201(10) (Vernon Supp.2002)). The Dresser release provisions were located on the back of a work order in a series of numbered paragraphs without headings or contrasting type. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 510-11. The contract had eighteen uniformly printed and spaced paragraphs printed on the reverse side of the contract with a provision incorporating all eighteen paragraphs on the front side of the contract. Id. at 511 n. 6. The court held that the contractual exculpatory provisions were without effect since they did not comply with the fair notice requirement of conspicuousness. Id.; see also Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 9 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>). Appellees argue that the indemnity language
holding that a party that settled but failed to immediately notify a third party of indemnity claims did not waive indemnity claims holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity holding that indemnity language on front of onepage contract was conspicuous holding that reinsurance is a mere contract of indemnity holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity