Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mary Erving filed suit against National Lloyds Insurance Company, alleging that National Lloyds had underpaid her insurance claims. During discovery, Erving requested production of all claims from the previous six years involving three individual adjusters along with claim files from the past year for properties involving two adjusting firms that handled her claims. National Lloyds objected to the requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome, after which Erving moved to compel production. The trial court ordered production of the majority of the files. National Lloyds unsuccessfully filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the court of appeals and, thereafter, sought mandamus relief in the Supreme Court. The Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to vacate its discovery order, holding that because the information Erving sought was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the trial court’s order compelling discovery of such information was overbroad. View "In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Ezequiel Castillo and other occupants of his Ford Explorer sued Ford Motor Company for injuries sustained in a roll-over accident, asserting design defects in the Explorer. During the jury’s deliberations, Ford Motor Company agreed to settle the case with one of Castillo’s attorneys for $3 million. Later, in its defense to the settlement, Ford asserted fraudulent inducement, unilateral mistake, and mutual mistake. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury found the settlement agreement invalid due to fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment. Castillo appealed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. View "Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Husband filed for divorce from Wife in 2009. The first recital in the divorce decree indicated that the hearing resulting in the judgment occurred in November 2011 and that Wife attended the hearing. Another recital in the divorce decree, however, indicated that the final hearing, at which Wife did not appear, occurred in September 2011. Wife filed for a restricted appeal, claiming that she did not appear at the hearing that resulted in the divorce decree. The court of appeals dismissed the restricted appeal, concluding that Wife appeared at a hearing in November 2011, and therefore, her restricted appeal was foreclosed for want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record conclusively supported the recital that the final hearing resulting in the divorce decree occurred in September 2011, and neither Wife nor her attorney participated in the hearing; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred in concluding it had no jurisdiction over Wife’s restricted appeal. Remanded. View "Pike-Grant v. Grant" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a construction corporation, contracted to construct a wharf for Respondent, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas. After the construction was to be completed, Petitioner sued, claiming damages from delays caused by the Port. The Port, in turn, claimed that a no-damages-for-delay provision in the construction contract between the parties precluded delay damages. Petitioner also sought recovery of $2.36 million in delay damages withheld by the Port for Petitioner’s failure to meet deadlines. After a trial, the jury found that the Port had breached the contract for deliberately and wrongfully interfering with Petitioner’s work, causing Petitioner to incur $18,602,697 in delay damages. The jury also found Petitioner had not released its claim to the $2.36 million liquidated damages the Port withheld. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the Local Government Contract Claims Act waives governmental immunity from suit on a contract claim for delay damages the contract does not call for; (2) the no-damages-for-delay provision in the parties’ contract did not shield the Port from liability for deliberately and wrongfully interfering with the contractor’s work; and (3) Petitioner was entitled to recover the liquidated damages withheld by the Port. View "Zachry Constr. Corp. v. Port of Houston Auth. of Harris County" on Justia Law

Petitioner worked for a BCG Attorney Search, Inc. until he left and started a competing firm. BCG’s president, Andrew Barnes, posted a statement on two of his websites implicating Petitioner in a kickback scheme during his employment with BCG. Petitioner sued BDG, Barnes, two of Barnes’s companies for defamation, seeking a permanent injunction requiring Barnes to remove from his websites the defamatory speech and prohibiting Barnes from making similar statements, in any form, in the future. The trial court granted summary judgment for Barnes, concluding that the relief Petitioner sought would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech under the Texas Constitution. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a permanent injunction requiring the removal of posted speech that has been adjudicated defamatory is not a prior restraint; (2) a permanent injunction prohibiting future speech based on that adjudication is an unconstitutional infringement on Texans’ free-speech rights under the Texas Constitution; and (3) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the extent Petitioner’s requested injunction did not constitute a prior restraint, View "Kinney v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Respondent was injured while working on board a dredging vessel operated by Petitioner. Respondent sued Respondent under the Jones Act, arguing that he was injured working under a specific order. Under maritime law, when a seaman is carrying out a specific order, his damages may not be reduced by a finding of contributory negligence. A jury found Respondent was working under a specific order when he was injured and awarded him damages. The jury also found Respondent fifty percent at fault for his injures, but based on the specific-order finding, the trial court did not reduce Respondent’s award. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial courts have the discretion to set a deadline for charge objections that falls before the reading of the charge to the jury, and the trial court in this case acted within its discretion in refusing to hear a last-minute charge objection, as the trial court provided a reasonable amount of time for counsel to examine and object to the change; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Respondent was following a specific order when he was injured. View "King Fisher Marine Serv., LP v. Tamez" on Justia Law

This suit was between a physician and other medical providers. Finding that Plaintiff-physician filed baseless pleadings in bad faith and with an improper purpose, the trial court imposed sanctions in excess of one million dollars. This was one of the highest reported monetary sanctions awards in Texas and the United States. The court of appeals affirmed the awards. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) due process requires that sanctions be just, meaning that there be a direct nexus between the sanction and the sanctionable conduct, and be visited on the true offender; (2) the trial court’s sanctions award in this case met due process requirements because Plaintiff’s pleadings asserted time-barred claims and address matters irrelevant to the lawsuit in an attempt to leverage a more favorable settlement; and (3) because the trial court, when assessing the amount of sanctions, failed to examine the extent to which Defendants bore some responsibility for the expenses they incurred in litigating a variety of issues for over four years, remand is required for the trial court to reassess the amount of the sanctions award. View "Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp." on Justia Law

Tex. R. Civ. P. 202 allows a “proper court” to authorize a deposition to investigate a potential claim before it is filed. In this case, “the Trooper,” an anonymous blogger, launched an online attack on The Reynolds & Reynolds Co. and its chairman (collectively, Reynolds). To discover the Trooper’s identity, Reynolds filed a Rule 202 petition in the Harris County district court seeking to depose Google, Inc., which hosts the blog, and requesting that Google disclose the contact information of the owner of the blog website. Reynolds stated that it anticipated the institution of litigation against the Trooper. The Trooper opposed Reynolds’ petition, arguing that because he did not have minimal contacts with Texas sufficient for a Texas court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him, there was no “proper court” under Rule 202 to order a deposition to investigate a suit in which he may be a defendant. The trial court ordered that Google be deposed. The Supreme Court conditionally granted the Trooper’s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order, holding that the trial court’s order exceeded its authority under Rule 202 because a “proper court” must have personal jurisdiction over the potential defendant. View "In re John Doe A/K/A “Trooper”" on Justia Law

An intellectually disabled and mentally ill mother (Mother) gave birth to a child when Mother was a teenager. When the child was two, she fell and suffered injuries to her teeth and jaw. The next day, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) removed the child from Mother and filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Two months after the suit was filed, DFPS served Father by publication. John received no notice of the hearings in the case, nor did he receive notice of the trial. After proceedings in the termination suit began, Mother executed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment naming DFPS as managing conservator of the child. The first day of trial, the State served Father with a subpoena to attend the trial. Father missed the first few hours of the trial. Following the trial, the jury found that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The court of appeals affirmed both terminations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that termination of both parents’ rights was improper because there was legally insufficient evidence that Mother knowingly and intelligently executed the affidavit of voluntary relinquishment and because Father did not receive notice of trial and did not waive notice. View "In re Interest of K.M.L." on Justia Law

Two subcontractors employed by Petitioner, a homebuilder, asserted claims on behalf of a class of subcontractors whose pay Petitioner had docked when the subcontractors did not furnish proof of adequate general liability insurance coverage. The parties settled. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Petitioner would issue refunds checks, sending them to existing subcontractors as it would their paychecks or by mailing checks to the last known addresses of former subcontractors. The class representatives agreed, on behalf of the settlement class members, that refund checks not negotiated within ninety days of issuance would be void and that those and other unclaimed funds would be given to The Nature Conservancy as a cy pres award. The trial court approved the settlement and rendered final judgment accordingly. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Texas Unclaimed Property Act prohibited the imposition of a ninety-day deadline for negotiating settlement checks and the cy pres award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act did not apply in this case and that the judgment approving the settlement agreement was binding on all settlement class members. View "Highland Homes Ltd. v. State" on Justia Law