Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Homes built with an exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) suffer serious water damage that worsens over time. Homebuilder began a remediation program in which it offered to homeowners to remove exterior EIFS from the homes it had built and to replace it with conventional stucco. Almost all the homeowners accepted Homebuilder's offer of remediation. Homebuilder sought indemnification for the costs from its insurers (Insurers). Insurers denied coverage, preferring instead to wait until the homeowners sued. This litigation ensued. Now, only one insurer remained. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Homebuilder, finding (1) Homebuilder failed to establish its legal liability to the homeowners to trigger Insurer's coverage; and (2) Homebuilder failed to offer evidence of damages covered by the policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Homebuilder's settlements with the homeowners established both Insurer's legal liability for the property damages and the basis for determining the amount of loss; and (2) Insurer's policy covered Homebuilder's entire remediation costs for damaged homes. View "Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The family of a nursing home patient filed this action against the nursing home for, inter alia, medical negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and retaliation. Plaintiffs asserted the retaliation claim under the Texas Health & Safety Code, which creates a cause of action against a nursing facility that retaliates against a resident or family member who makes a complaint concerning the facility. Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims pursuant to the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) because the expert report was deficient. The trial court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims except for the retaliation claim, concluding that the claim was not a health care liability claim (HCLC) for which the TMLA requires a supporting expert report. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment with respect to the retaliation claim, holding that because the retaliation claim was based on the same factual allegations on which one of Plaintiffs' HCLCs was based, the claim should have been dismissed for lack of a sufficient expert report. View "PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets" on Justia Law

This suit was filed as a putative class action on behalf of Texas royalty owners alleging that Phillips Petroleum Company underpaid oil and gas royalties. The trial court certified three subclasses of royalty owners. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed as to two of the subclasses but reversed as to the third subclass, which alleged breach of a uniform express royalty provision contained in gas royalty agreements that amended the class members' leases. On remand, Respondent, class representative of the remaining subclass, amended her petition to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. Phillips unsuccessfully filed various motions contending that there was no class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. The court of appeals dismissed Phillips' interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Phillips' petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in dismissing the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the addition of a class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market without requiring Respondent to file an amended motion for class certification or holding a certification hearing. View "Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law

Law Firm sued Client for breach of contract, alleging that Client failed to pay its legal fees. A jury found that Client breached the agreement and awarded Law Firm damages, $150,000 as reasonable attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. To suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, Client deposited a cashier's check with the trial court, including the breach of contract damages and pre- and post-judgment interest. The trial court subsequently ordered Client to supplement the deposit to cover the attorney's fees award. The court of appeals denied Client appellate relief, concluding that attorney's fees are both compensatory damages and costs for the purpose of suspending enforcement of a judgment. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Client mandamus relief, holding that attorney's fees are neither compensatory damages nor costs for purposes of suspending enforcement of a money judgment, and directed the trial court to vacate its order and refund and monies overpaid by Client. View "In re Nalle Plastics Family Ltd. P'ship" on Justia Law

Several hospitals (Hospitals) sued Aetna, Inc. and Aetna Health, Inc. (collectively Aetna) for allegedly violating the Prompt Pay Statute. Aetna provided a Medicare plan (Plan) through an HMO called NYLCare. It delegated the administration of its Plan to North American Medical Management of Texas (NAMM), a third-party administrator. IPA Management Services (Management Services) provided medical services to Plan enrollees. Management Services entered into contracts with the Hospitals to secure hospital services for the Plan employees. Aetna was not a party to these contracts. The Hospitals submitted hospital bills to NAMM for payment. After NAMM and Management Services became insolvent, Aetna de-delegated NAMM and assumed responsibility for processing and paying claims. However, Aetna instructed the Hospitals to continue submitting their bills to NAMM. The Hospitals argued that Aetna was liable for NAMM's failure to timely pay claims and was responsible for $13 million in outstanding bills. The trial court granted summary judgment for Aetna. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that because the Hospitals entered into contracts with Management Services and not with Aetna directly, the Hospitals had no viable prompt-pay claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lack of privity between the Hospitals and Aetna precluded the Hospitals' suit. View "Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff hired Defendant to repair foundation problems on her home. The foundation repair contract specified that Defendant would perform the foundation repair in a good and workmanlike manner and adjust the foundation for the life of the home due to settling. In 2006, Plaintiff sued Defendant for, inter alia, breach of an express warranty, breach of the common-law warranty of good and workmanlike repairs, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) claims. The trial court entered judgment for Plaintiff on her breach of implied warranty of good and workmanlike repairs and DTPA claims. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that Plaintiff take nothing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) parties cannot disclaim but can supersede the implied warranty for good and workmanlike repair of tangible goods or property if the parties' agreement specifically describes the manner, performance, or quality of the services; (2) the express warranty in this case sufficiently described the manner, performance, or quality of the services so as to supersede the implied warranty; and (3) Plaintiff's remaining DTPA claims were time barred. View "Gonzales v. Sw. Olshan Found. Repair Co., LLC" on Justia Law

El Dorado Land Company sold property to the City of McKinney for use as a park. El Dorado's special warranty deed provided that the conveyance was subject to the restriction that the community only be used for that purpose. If the City decided not to use the property as a community park, the deed granted El Dorado the right to purchase the property. Ten years after acquiring the property, the City built a public library on part of the land. El Dorado notified the City it intended to exercise its option to purchase, but after the City failed to acknowledge El Dorado's rights under the deed, El Dorado sued for inverse condemnation. The trial court sustained the City's plea to the jurisdiction, finding that El Dorado's claim did not involve a compensable taking of property but, rather, a breach of contract for which the City's governmental immunity had not been waived. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in its deed to the City, El Dorado retained a reversionary interest in the property that was a property interest capable of being taken by condemnation. Remanded. View "El Dorado Land Co., LP v. City of McKinney" on Justia Law

Richmont Holdings purchased the assets of Superior Recharge Systems. The terms of the sales were set out in a purchase agreement that included a provision for binding arbitration of any dispute relating to the agreement. In connection with the sale, Richmont Holdings agreed to hire John Blake for a period of two years. The employment agreement did not include an arbitration provision. Six months later, Blake's employment was terminated. Blake sued Richmont. Richmont answered and later moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Richmont waived its arbitration rights because it had substantially invoked the judicial process. The court of appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the parties did not have a valid agreement to arbitrate because the dispute arose exclusively out of the employment agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals' failure to recognize the arbitration agreement at issue in this case was contrary to the Court's precedent, which mandates enforcement of such an agreement absent proof of a defense. Remanded to consider the waiver of defense raised below. View "Richmont Holdings, Inc v. Superior Recharge Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

A pipeline owner (Owner) purchased sixty-eight mile-long pipeline constructed in the 1940s and made plans to remove the old pipeline and construct a new one that would carry butane. Owner awarded Contractor the contract to replace a certain section of the pipeline. After Contractor commenced work, Contractor filed suit against Owner for breach of contract and fraud based on Owner's failure to locate several hundred "foreign crossings" in the pipeline's path and its subsequent refusal to compensate Contractor for its additional expenses resulting from the obstacles. The trial court found in favor of Owner, finding that the parties' contract allocated the risk of any additional cost incurred because of foreign crossings to Contractor. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Owner failed to exercise due diligence in locating the foreign crossings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding (1) the contract allocated all risk to Contractor for unknown obstacles discovered during the construction process; and (2) the jury's answers to questions about Contractor's recovery for breach of contract based on due diligence were immaterial. View "El Paso Field Servs., L.P. v. MasTec N.A., Inc." on Justia Law