Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief in this mandamus proceeding concerning a motion to compel a medical examination under Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1, holding that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion.Marcos Acosta brought this action alleging that he was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of Roberto Hernandez, who was working for The Sherwin-Williams Company at the time, and seeking damages for, among other things, medical expenses and physical pain. The defendants moved to compel a medical examination of Acosta by their designated expert, but the trial court denied the motion to compel the exam. The court of appeals denied mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief and directed the trial court to issue an order compelling Acosta to submit to the proposed examination, holding that the defendants showed good cause to compel a medical examination of Acosta. View "In re Sherwin-Williams Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 16.063 did not toll the running of the statute of limitations during Defendant's physical absence from Texas.At issue was whether section 16.063 applies to toll the when the defendant leaves the state for part of the limitations period but remains a Texas resident subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas amenable to service under the Texas long-arm statute. Defendant lived in Texas at the time that she was involved in a car accident with Plaintiff but subsequently moved to Massachusetts to attend school. Defendant, however, returned to Texas during breaks, maintained a Texas mailing address, and kept her Texas driver license. Plaintiff tried serving Defendant at her family's Texas home without success. When Defendant was finally served she successfully moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the court's application of Ashley v. Hawkins, 293 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. 2009), to this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that if a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas and amenable to service, she is not absent from the state under section 16.063. View "Ferrer v. Almanza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted Defendants' petition for mandamus relief from the trial court's order striking their counteraffidavit served under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 18.001, holding that the trial court's order was an abuse of discretion for which Defendants lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.Plaintiff sued Defendants for negligence. At issue was the counteraffidavit and testimony of Dr. Benny Sanchez, who was retained by Defendants as an expert witness. Plaintiff moved to strike Dr. Sanchez's counteraffidavit and testimony, arguing that the counteraffidavit improperly challenged the cause of Plaintiff's injuries, not the necessity of his treatment. The trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, the trial court issued its opinion in Allstate. Defendants later brought this petition seeking a writ of mandamus and citing In re Allstate Indemnity Insurance Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021), in support of their argument that the trial court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court agreed and conditionally granted the writ, holding that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by striking Dr. Sanchez's counteraffidavit and testimony, and Defendants lacked an adequate remedy to address this error by way of appeal. View "In re Chefs' Product of Houston, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the court of appeals in these companion cases brought by advocacy groups supporting legalized abortion against Defendant, who publicly advocated against legalized abortion, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the defamation suit but erred in permitting the companion suit to advance.Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant legally defamed them by making statements that equated abortion to murder and by characterizing plaintiffs as criminal. One court of appeals concluded that Defendant's statements were political opinions that voiced disagreement with legal protections afforded to abortion providers and dismissed the suit. The other court of appeals concluded that the statements were inconsistent with the Penal Code and permitted that defamation suit to continue. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant properly invoked the Texas Citizens Participation Act and that Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of defamation in response. View "Dickson v. Afiya Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment rejecting Defendants' requests to apply a settlement against the award against it and to pay the future damages in periodic payments, holding that the lower courts erred. Jo Ann Puente underwent gastric-bypass surgery and developed complications, leading her to a debilitating brain disorder. Puente, who died while this appeal was pending, and her family sued several healthcare providers, seeking damages. Puente settled with certain defendants prior to trial. After trial, the jury entered judgment for Plaintiffs. The remaining defendants (Defendants) moved for a settlement credit, arguing that the $3.3 million settlement should reduce Puente's recovery. The trial court rejected that argument, granted credit of $200,000 for the settlement, and denied Defendants' motion for periodic payment of the award for future medical expenses. The court of appeals largely affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code required a credit for the settlement; and (2) the Texas Medical Liability Act required the trial court to order that at least some of the future damages be paid periodically. View "Virlar v. Puente" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Plaintiffs' claim against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) alleging premises liability based on the condition of a construction zone, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Tort Claims Act.On a late while traveling through a roadway construction site, Plaintiffs - a motorcyclist and his wife - collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. Plaintiffs sued several parties, including TxDOT, alleging that the demarcation of opposing travel lanes with painted yellow stripes and buttons instead of concrete barriers, a condition called for in the project's traffic-control plan, created an unreasonably dangerous condition, causing their injuries. TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, ruling that TxDOT retained its immunity from suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to create a fact issue regarding an essential element of their premises-defect claim: the existence of an unreasonably dangerous condition. View "Christ v. Tex. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

In this dispute over an arbitration clause within a contract, the Supreme Court held that the minor children who joined Plaintiffs, their parents, in bringing this action seeking damages for construction defects in their home may be compelled to arbitrate along with their parents on the basis of direct-benefits estoppel.Plaintiffs, Tony and Michelle Ha, signed a purchase agreement with Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. to build a home in Texas. The agreement included an arbitration provision. The Has sued both Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. and Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., for negligent construction and other claims, alleging the home developed significant mold problems due to construction defects. Plaintiffs' second amended petition named both Tony and Michelle and their three children. Taylor Morrison moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion as it pertained to Michelle and the children. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a family unit resides in a home and files suit for factually intertwined construction-defect claims concerning the home, a nonsignatory spouse and minor children have accepted direct benefits under the signatory spouse’s purchase agreement such that they may be compelled to arbitrate through direct-benefits estoppel. View "Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. v. Ha" on Justia Law

In this dispute over an arbitration clause within a contract, the Supreme Court held that the minor children who joined Plaintiffs, their parents, in bringing this action seeking damages for construction defects in their home may be compelled to arbitrate along with their parents on the basis of direct-benefits estoppel.Plaintiffs, Jack and Erin Skufca, signed a purchase agreement with Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. to build a home in Texas. The agreement included an arbitration provision. Plaintiffs sued both Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. and Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., for construction defects and fraud, alleging that less than a year after they moved in, the home developed mold issues that caused their minor children to be ill. The petition listed Jack and Erin as plaintiffs individually, as well as Erin as next friend of the couple's children. Taylor Morrison moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion as it pertained to the children. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the minor children sued based on the contract and were subject to its terms, including the arbitration clause. View "Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. v. Skufca" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the company alleged to be a deceased worker's employer and dismissing this vicarious liability case, holding that the court of appeals erred.An oilfield worker was involved in a fatal accident as he was driving to the oilfield drilling site after completing personal errands. At issue was whether the court of appeals erroneously relied upon the "special mission" exception in declining to apply the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for negligence arising from employee travel to and from work. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a personal trip for groceries does not fall within the special mission exception to the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's negligent acts while the employee travels to and from work. View "Cameron International Corp. v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In this personal injury case, the Supreme Court held that a governmental defendant retains its immunity from suit as to a claim that exceeds the applicable damages cap,Plaintiff was crossing the street when he was hit by a bus driven by an employee of Defendant, the Gulf Coast Center, and sued Defendant for his resulting injuries. Defendant answered, claiming that it was a governmental unit, that it was protected from suit and liability by governmental immunity, and that its liability, if any, was limited by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The jury found Defendant negligent and awarded Plaintiff $216,000. Defendant appealed, arguing that the Act capped its liability at $100,000. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act waives a governmental unit's immunity from suit only to the extent the act waives it immunity from liability, and therefore, courts lack jurisdiction to render a judgment that exceeds the applicable damages cap under Tex. Civ. Proc. & Rem. Code 101.023. View "Gulf Coast Center v. Curry" on Justia Law