Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. (“WMT”) and Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. (“TDS”) competed for waste-disposal and landfill-services contracts with two Texas cities. During the bidding process, WMT anonymously published a community “Action Alert” claiming that TDS’s landfills were less environmentally sensitive than they actually were and as compared to other area landfills. TDS sued WMT for defamation. After a second trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of TDS, awarding it $450,592 for expenses, $5 million for injury to reputation, and $20 million as exemplary damages. The trial court treated the $5 million award for injury to reputation as non-economic damages for purposes of the statutory cap on exemplary damages and rendered an exemplary damage award of approximately $1.6 million. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a corporation may suffer reputation damages, and such damages are non-economic in nature for purposes of the statutory cap on exemplary damages; (2) the evidence in this case was not sufficient to support the award of reputation damages; and (3) TDS was entitled to exemplary damages, but the amount must be recalculated. View "Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were competitors. Plaintiff sued Defendant for tortious interference with Plaintiff’s non-solicitation agreements with employees. Five days after receiving a settlement offer from Defendant, Plaintiff filed its designation of expert witnesses. After Defendant filed its own expert designations, Plaintiff sent a letter “accepting” Defendant’s settlement offer. Defendant refused to pay the previously agreed-to amount based on fraudulent inducement and failure of consideration. Plaintiff amended its pleadings to assert a breach of contract claim based on the alleged settlement agreement. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that no settlement agreement existed because Plaintiff had not accepted all of the offer’s material terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence established that Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer. Remanded. View "Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC" on Justia Law

Most of the employees at a La Porte unit (“Unit”) of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). When DuPont announced plans to spin off part of its operations, including the Unit, into a wholly owned subsidiary, DuPont Textiles and Interiors (“DTI”), almost all of the Unit employees moved to DTI, even though the CBA gave the employees the right to transfer to other DuPont jobs. DuPont subsequently sold DTI to Koch Industries, which reduced the former DuPont employees’ compensation and retirement benefits. Several of the former DuPont employees sued DuPont for fraudulently inducing them to terminate their employment and accept employment with DTI by misrepresenting that DTI would not be sold. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the Texas Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) at-will employees cannot bring an action against their corporate employer for fraud that is dependent on continued employment; and (2) employees covered under a cancellation-upon-notice CBA that limits the employer’s ability to discharge its employees only for just cause cannot bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment. View "Sawyer v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

The estate and survivors of Belinda Valdemar sued Health Care Unlimited, Inc. (HCU) and its employee, Edna Gonzalez, after Valdemar died as a result of an automobile accident. Valdemar was a passenger in a vehicle that Gonzalez was driving at the time of the accident. The jury agreed that Gonzalez negligently caused the accident but found that Gonzalez was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, and therefore, HCU was not vicariously liable. Valdemar’s survivors filed a motion for a mistrial, alleging that the presiding juror engaged in juror misconduct by communicating with an HCU employee during breaks while the jury was deliberating. The trial court granted the motion. HCU petitioned the court of appeals for mandamus relief, which was denied. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, where the facts in this case, without more, did not support a finding that the communications between the juror and the HCU employee probably caused injury. View "In re Health Care Unlimited, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a premises liability suit against Defendant, Whataburger Restaurants LP, for injuries sustained in a fight outside of Defendant’s restaurant. The jury rendered a 10-2 verdict in favor of Defendant, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment based on the jury’s verdict. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, asserting that one of the ten majority jurors had committed misconduct when she failed to disclose prior to trial that she had previously been a defendant in a lawsuit. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial on the ground that Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to question or strike the juror in light of the missing information. Defendant filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, which was denied. Defendant sought mandamus review in the Supreme Court. The Court conditionally granted the petition, holding that because the record contained no competent evidence that the juror’s nondisclosure resulted in probable injury, and the only competent evidence supported that it did not, the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. View "In re Whataburger Rests. LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, which provided laser hair removal services, for negligence after she allegedly suffered burns and scarring on her face and neck while receiving laser hair removal treatments. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff had not served an expert report as required by the Medical Liability Act for health care liability claims. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that her claim for improper laser hair removal was a health care liability claim, and therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to serve an expert report precluded her suit. View "Rio Grande Valley Vein Clinic, P.A. v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Saul Morales was fleeing from the police when one of the police officers left his Ford vehicle, then pursued and apprehended Morales. The officer’s vehicle began rolling backward toward the pair while the officer attempted to handcuff Morales. The vehicle ran over and came to rest on top of Morales, injuring him. Morales sued Ford Motor Company and the car’s seller (collectively, “Ford”), alleging that the vehicle had a design defect. After deposing two of Ford’s expert witnesses, Morales sought to depose a corporate representative of each expert’s employer to expose potential bias. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that on the facts of this case, the Rules of Civil Procedure did not permit such discovery. View "In re Ford Motor Co. & Ken Stoepel Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

Crosstex Energy Services, LP hired Pro Plus, Inc. as the principal contractor to construct a natural gas compression station. Crosstex sued Pro Plus after an explosion occurred at the station, causing $10 million in property damage. The parties entered an agreement to move expert designation dates beyond the limitations period, but after limitations ran, Pro Plus filed a motion to dismiss because Crosstex had not filed a certificate of merit with its original petition as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 150.002. The trial court denied the motion and granted Crosstex an extension to file the certificate. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in asserting jurisdiction over Pro Plus’s interlocutory appeal of the extension order; (2) section 150.002’s “good cause” extension is available only when a party filed suit within ten days of the end of the limitations period, and therefore, Crosstex could not claim protection from the good cause extension; and (3) a defendant’s conduct can waive the plaintiff’s certificate of merit requirement, but Pro Plus’s conduct did not constitute waiver. View "Crosstex Energy Servs. L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

Veasna Sok sued Bioderm Skin Care, LLC and Dr. Quan Nguyen after Sok purchased laser hair removal treatments from Bioderm and allegedly received burns and scars on her legs due to too high an intensity setting. When Sok did not serve an expert report within 120 days of filing her original petition, Defendants moved to dismiss Sok’s claim, asserting that it was a health care liability claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to dismiss the claim, holding (1) the rebuttable presumption that Sok’s claim was a Sok care liability claim applied in this case; and (2) Plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption because expert health care testimony was necessary to prove or refute her claim. View "Bioderm Skin Care, LLC v. Sok" on Justia Law

A commercial tenant (Tenant) remained in possession of property for over ten years after Tenant lost its lease when the property was sold through foreclosure. The new owner (Owner) continually insisted that Tenant vacate the premises, and Tenant ultimately conceded that it had become a tenant at sufferance. Owner filed suit against Tenant, alleging claims for breach of the terminated lease, for trespass and other torts, and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The trial court entered summary judgment for Tenant on all claims. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a tenant at sufferance cannot be liable for breach of a previously terminated lease agreement; (2) a tenant at sufferance is trespassing and can be liable in tort, including tortious interference with prospective business relations; (3) Tenant in this case could not be liable under the DTPA; and (4) Owner in this case could not recover attorney’s fees under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. View "Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp." on Justia Law