This case involves a dispute between a homeowner, Mario Rodriguez, and his insurance company, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana. After a tornado damaged Rodriguez's home, Safeco issued a payment of $27,449.88, which Rodriguez accepted. Rodriguez's counsel then informed Safeco that it owed an additional $29,500 and threatened to sue. Rodriguez sued Safeco, bringing several claims, including breach of contract and statutory claims under the Insurance Code. Safeco invoked the insurance policy’s appraisal provision and subsequently issued a check to Rodriguez for $32,447.73, which it viewed as full payment of the appraisal amount due under the policy. Safeco also paid an additional $9,458.40, which it claimed would cover any interest possibly owed on the appraised amount.The Supreme Court of Texas was asked to answer a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: “In an action under Chapter 542A of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act, does an insurer’s payment of the full appraisal award plus any possible statutory interest preclude recovery of attorney’s fees?” The Supreme Court of Texas held that the answer is yes. When an insurer has fully discharged its obligations under the policy by voluntarily paying the appraised amount, plus any statutory interest, in compliance with the policy’s appraisal provisions, section 542A.007 of the Insurance Code prohibits an award of attorney’s fees. This is because there is no remaining “amount to be awarded in the judgment to the claimant for the claimant’s claim under the insurance policy,” which means no attorney’s fees are available under section 542A.007(a)(3)’s formula. View "RODRIGUEZ v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA" on Justia Law

In Houston, Texas, a nurse was struck and killed by a driver while crossing the public street next to the hospital where she worked. The nurse's family filed a suit against the hospital, arguing that the hospital had a duty to make the adjacent public road safer due to the layout of its exit and parking lot, which they claimed created a situation in which injury to others was foreseeable. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the hospital had a limited duty as a premises occupier based on its control over certain parts of the adjacent public right-of-way. However, the court found no evidence that any dangerous condition the hospital controlled in the right-of-way caused the nurse’s harm. The court rejected the lower courts' ruling that there was a case-specific duty for the hospital to make the road safer. The court reversed the judgment of the lower courts, rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of the hospital. View "HNMC, INC. v. CHAN" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas considered a medical negligence case where a 13-year-old girl, Raynee Dunnick, was bitten by a rattlesnake and was treated by Dr. Kristy Marsillo at a local hospital. The hospital had a specific guideline for snakebite treatment, which was followed by Dr. Marsillo. This guideline recommends administering antivenom, a treatment for snakebite, only when certain clinical parameters are met. According to the guideline, the risk of side effects from the antivenom should also be considered.Raynee and her parents sued Dr. Marsillo, claiming that her adherence to the guidelines and her decision not to immediately administer the antivenom upon Raynee's arrival at the hospital was negligent and resulted in Raynee's pain, suffering, impairment, and disfigurement. The trial court granted Dr. Marsillo's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of no-evidence of breach of duty and causation. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but Dr. Marsillo appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.In its decision, the Supreme Court of Texas held that under section 74.153(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a heightened standard of proof is required for a patient's negligence claim against a physician for injuries arising out of the provision of emergency medical care. The claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician acted with willful and wanton negligence, which is at least equivalent to gross negligence.The court found that the evidence presented by Raynee did not meet this standard. Specifically, the court found that the expert affidavit provided by Raynee was conclusory and did not adequately explain why the guidelines should have been disregarded or why doing so would have posed an extreme degree of risk to Raynee. Therefore, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Dr. Marsillo. View "MARSILLO v. DUNNICK" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas handled a case in which a nurse claimed her employer, Scott & White Memorial Hospital, wrongfully terminated her employment in retaliation for reporting potential child abuse or neglect to the Texas Child Protective Services (CPS), which is considered a protected conduct under Section 261.110(b) of the Texas Family Code.The nurse, Dawn Thompson, had previously received two written reprimands for violating the hospital's personal-conduct policy. On the third occasion, she disclosed a child patient's protected health information to a school nurse without the parents' authorization. This was considered by the hospital as a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and a breach of the patient's rights. Consequently, Thompson was terminated.Thompson filed a lawsuit against the hospital, asserting that her termination was in violation of Family Code Section 261.110(b), which protects professionals who report child abuse or neglect in good faith from adverse employment actions.The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Section 261.110 imposes a "but-for causation" requirement, which means that the protected conduct must be such that without it, the adverse employment action would not have occurred when it did. In this case, the court found that Thompson would have been terminated when she was due to her HIPAA violation, regardless of her report to CPS. Therefore, the court rejected Thompson's retaliation claim and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the hospital. View "SCOTT & WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. THOMPSON" on Justia Law

In Texas, the District Attorney for the 38th Judicial District, Christina Mitchell Busbee, objected to the sale of a property that was purchased with the District's forfeiture funds and was legally owned by Medina County. The District Attorney argued that the County could not sell the property without her consent and that she was entitled to the sale proceeds. The trial court and the court of appeals ruled that the District Attorney did not have standing to make these claims because the relevant statute, Chapter 59, authorizes only the Attorney General to enforce its terms. The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, holding that the question of whether the District Attorney was authorized to sue under Chapter 59 did not pertain to her constitutional standing to sue, but rather to the merits of her claims. The Court concluded that the District Attorney did have constitutional standing to sue because she had alleged a concrete injury traceable to the County's conduct and redressable by court order. The case was remanded back to the trial court to consider the County's additional jurisdictional challenges. View "BUSBEE v. COUNTY OF MEDINA, TEXAS" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Texas examined the requirements for terminating parental rights based on a parent's noncompliance with a service plan ordered by the court. The mother had been ordered to follow a service plan after her children were removed from her care due to allegations of neglectful supervision. The plan required her to attend counseling sessions, parenting classes, and substance abuse classes. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services later sought to terminate the mother's parental rights based on her alleged failure to comply fully with the service plan.The lower courts held that the mother's failure to strictly comply with the plan's requirements necessitated termination of her parental rights. However, the Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with this interpretation. The court stated that the requirement for termination of parental rights based on noncompliance with a service plan is not strict compliance with every detail of the plan. The court emphasized that the noncompliance must involve a requirement that is specifically established in the plan and is material to the plan's overall purpose. In light of this, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on her noncompliance with the service plan.The court therefore reversed the judgment of the lower courts in part and rendered judgment vacating those portions of the trial court’s order terminating the mother's parental rights. The remainder of the trial court’s termination order was affirmed. View "IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.G., R.J.G., D.G.M." on Justia Law

In this case handled by the Supreme Court of Texas, the parents of two children, Kate Cox and Justin Cox, along with their doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, filed a suit to challenge the enforcement of Texas laws that prohibit abortion. Mrs. Cox was about 20 weeks pregnant with a baby diagnosed with trisomy 18, a serious genetic disorder. The suit sought to apply a medical-necessity exception provided in the Texas law, which allows an abortion if a woman's life is threatened or she faces a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function due to her pregnancy.The court, in its decision, clarified that the exception to the abortion prohibition is based on the reasonable medical judgment of a doctor, not a court. It was noted that Dr. Karsan presented a "good faith belief" that Mrs. Cox meets the exception's requirements but did not assert that her belief meets the objective standard of "reasonable medical judgment."The court held that judges lack the authority to broaden the statutory exception by interpreting it and held the trial court erred in applying a different, lower standard instead of requiring reasonable medical judgment. The court emphasized that the exception requires a doctor's decision whether a pregnant woman’s complications pose the required risks.The court conditionally granted relief and directed the trial court to vacate the temporary restraining order that had restrained the Attorney General from enforcing the abortion laws against Dr. Karsan and others related to the case, based solely on the verified pleading. The court also noted that nothing in their opinion prevents a physician from acting if, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, they determine that the pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition. View "IN RE STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas, in this case, addressed two questions relating to the interpretation of Section 16.064(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The questions pertained to the application of this statute when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the court could have had jurisdiction had the claimants properly pleaded the jurisdictional facts and when the subsequent action is to be filed within 60 days after the dismissal becomes final.The first question was whether Section 16.064(a) applies when the prior court dismissed the action because of lack of jurisdiction, but the court would have had jurisdiction if the claimants had properly pleaded the jurisdictional facts. The Supreme Court of Texas answered in the affirmative, concluding that the statute applies even if the prior court could have had jurisdiction, as long as it dismissed the action due to a perceived lack of jurisdiction.The second question was whether the subsequent action was filed within sixty days after the dismissal became final. The Supreme Court of Texas also answered this question in the affirmative, holding that a dismissal or other disposition becomes final under Section 16.064(a)(2) when the parties have exhausted their appellate remedies and the courts' power to alter the dismissal has ended.The factual background of the case involved two flight attendants who alleged that they were injured when a smoke detector on a flight malfunctioned. They initially filed a suit against The Boeing Company in a federal district court in Houston, then refiled their claims in a federal district court in Dallas. After the Dallas district court dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction (based on inadequate pleading of diversity jurisdiction), the flight attendants appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the flight attendants subsequently refiled their claims in state court. Boeing then moved to dismiss the action based on the two-year statute of limitations. The Houston district court granted the motion and dismissed the suit, leading to the certified questions. View "SANDERS v. THE BOEING COMPANY (U.S. Fifth Circuit 22-20317)" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus in this action brought by Plaintiff, Thalia Harris, against Defendant, her insurer, for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by quashing requested discovery and by ordering Defendant's counsel to pay $2,000 as a sanction.Following a car collision, Plaintiff settled with the other driver for his policy limits and sued Defendant for UIM benefits. Defendant disputed the amount of Plaintiff's alleged damages and sought production from her primary care physician of Plaintiff's medical records spanning a period of ten years during which Plaintiff was involved in five other car accidents, some of which caused injuries similar to those Plaintiff sustained in the accident at issue. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion to quash the discovery and for sanctions. The Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its order quashing deposition notices and ordering sanctions, holding (1) the trial court's order vitiated or several compromised Defendant's ability to present a viable defense at trial, and an appeal was not an adequate remedy; and (2) the trial court clearly abused its discretion by quashing Plaintiff's discovery requests. View "In re Liberty County Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment in this dispute over a particular provision in a land-improvement contract, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the contract was ambiguous and could not be established as a matter of law.The trial court interpreted the disputed provision as a matter of law and instructed the jury accordingly. The court then entered judgment based on the jury's verdict, which resolved the issues of liability and damages. The court of appeals reached the same result as the trial court but nevertheless reversed, determining that, despite its analysis of the language of the contract, the provision was still ambiguous. The court then ordered a new trial so that a jury could determine the meaning of the contractual text. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court correctly construed the subject provision, and the court of appeals erred in ruling that the provision was ambiguous. View "U.S. Polyco, Inc. Texas Central Business Lines Corp." on Justia Law