Scott A. Brister

The case involved a dispute between MBM Financial Corporation and The Woodlands Operating Company over copier leases, where Woodlands attempted to terminate the agreements but MBM allegedly altered dates and refused to designate return locations, leading Woodlands to sue for breach of contract, fraud, and declaratory relief. After a bench trial, the court awarded Woodlands $1,000 in damages and nearly $145,000 in attorney's fees, which the court of appeals largely upheld. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding that no evidence supported the $1,000 award as actual damages and that $1,000 exceeded the scope of nominal damages, which are typically limited to a trifling sum like one dollar for breach of contract when no compensable harm is proven. Because the underlying damages award failed, the attorney's fees award was also set aside under the American Rule requiring each party to bear its own fees absent a client gaining something of value. The court further noted that declaratory relief could not independently support fees in these circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over copier leases between MBM Financial Corp. and The Woodlands Operating Co., where the Woodlands sued for breach of contract and fraud after MBM allegedly mishandled lease termination notices and return instructions. The trial court awarded the Woodlands $1,000 in damages and over $145,000 in attorney's fees, which the court of appeals largely affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no evidence supporting the damages award as actual or nominal damages, and thus the attorney's fees award could not stand under the American Rule requiring a client to gain something from the suit. The court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of MBM.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between homeowner Becky Ann Johnson and her insurer State Farm Lloyds over the extent of hail damage to her roof and the cost to repair it after a 2003 storm. Johnson demanded appraisal under the standard policy clause to set the 'amount of loss,' but State Farm refused, arguing the disagreement concerned causation and liability rather than damages. The trial court ruled for State Farm and denied appraisal, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appraisal clauses address damage questions within their scope and that the record did not show the appraisal would exceed that scope before it occurred.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) had exclusive jurisdiction over a subrogation claim it filed in court to recover health benefits it had paid to the Duenez family after they received a settlement from a third party. ERS sought to dismiss its own lawsuit, arguing that the Duenezes must first pursue administrative remedies with the agency. The Texas Supreme Court held that ERS does not have exclusive jurisdiction over claims for collection of subrogation amounts, as opposed to payment of benefits, because the administrative process cannot be exhausted before filing suit when the suit is required to initiate recovery. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for review for want of jurisdiction, finding no conflict with prior precedent.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a shareholder derivative suit filed by Virginie Dillingham against the directors of Lancer Corporation, challenging a merger and seeking to halt it or later rescind it after a higher offer allegedly emerged. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the presuit demand letter sent to the board was inadequate under Texas law. The Texas Supreme Court held that the two-sentence demand failed to meet the statutory requirement of stating the claim with particularity and identifying the shareholder, rendering it insufficient even though Texas requires such demands in all cases. The Court granted mandamus relief directing dismissal of the suit, reasoning that the demand must provide enough detail to allow the board to assess the claim, consistent with the 1997 amendments to the Texas Business Corporation Act and longstanding corporate governance principles.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a dispute between working interest owners and their oil and gas operator over participation rights in successful wells drilled nearby, governed by joint operating agreements with arbitration clauses. The trial court granted the owners' motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, but the court of appeals found an exception applied and ordered mandamus relief. The Texas Supreme Court held that mandamus is unavailable to review orders compelling arbitration except in narrow circumstances, as broad review would undermine the federal and state policies favoring prompt resolution through arbitration. The Court reasoned that Texas courts must stay rather than dismiss cases pending arbitration, consistent with the Texas Arbitration Act and precedents like In re Palacios, and that the Apache Bohai exception did not apply here because the trial court acted within its discretion.

procedurebusiness & regulatory