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

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Gary Jones sued Dr. Mary Louise Watkins alleging injury to his eye during treatment, and served an initial expert report within the required 120 days that described treatment but omitted the statutory elements of standard of care, breach, and causation. The trial court granted a 30-day extension to cure the report, after which Jones filed a new unchallenged report. Dr. Watkins sought mandamus relief in the Texas Supreme Court to dismiss the suit on grounds that the extension was improper, but the court denied the petition. The core reasoning was that mandamus was unavailable because an interlocutory appeal would have been the proper vehicle if no report was served at all, while granting mandamus for a merely deficient report would circumvent the legislature's explicit limits on interlocutory review of such orders.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether Louis Goudeau, an employee who exited his employer's car to assist a stranded motorist on a freeway and was then injured when a third driver collided with the vehicles, qualified for coverage under the employer's underinsured motorist policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer USF&G, the court of appeals reversed finding a fact issue on occupancy, and the Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for the insurer. The Court held that Goudeau was not 'occupying' the vehicle under the policy's definition of 'in, upon, getting in, on, out or off,' applying the canon of noscitur a sociis to conclude that merely being near the car after exiting did not qualify, and rejected a broader causal-connection test as inapplicable to the occupancy requirement. The opinion also addressed related subrogation issues under workers' compensation law but affirmed denial of the underinsured claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Sonat could enforce an indemnity agreement against Cudd under a Master Service Agreement for oilfield services following a fatal explosion at a Louisiana well site, where survivors sued both parties in Texas and Sonat paid millions to settle claims. The trial court applied Texas law to uphold the indemnity and entered judgment for Sonat, but after appeals and intervention by Cudd's insurer Lumbermens, the court of appeals reversed on choice-of-law grounds. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed that Louisiana law applies and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that Texas choice-of-law rules under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws point to Louisiana because that is where the relevant work was performed and the laws of the two states conflict on the validity of such indemnity clauses when the indemnitee may have been negligent.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over mineral rights in a pooled gas unit in Texas after one owner's lease terminated due to unpaid royalties. Jane Sheppard argued that her lease's end removed her tract from the W.M. Landers Gas Unit, entitling her to a larger share of production from wells on her land and relieving her of pre-termination costs, while Wagner & Brown contended the unit continued and costs remained shared. The trial court and appeals court sided with Sheppard on summary judgment. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pooling agreement covered the lands themselves rather than depending on ongoing leases, so her participation in the unit persisted, and equitable principles allowed potential recovery of improvement costs incurred before termination. The Court remanded for further proceedings on the exact allocation of proceeds and costs.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, the plaintiffs sued the defendant trucking company after being injured in a highway collision, alleging vicarious liability for the driver's negligence and seeking compensatory damages. At trial, the court admitted evidence of the defendant's $1.9 billion in annual revenues despite no claim for punitive damages, and the jury awarded more than $3 million. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the wealth evidence inadmissible because it was irrelevant to proving negligence or the amount of compensatory damages and carried a substantial risk of prejudicing the jury. The court reasoned that evidence of a party's financial status is generally inadmissible in tort cases except when punitive damages are at issue and properly bifurcated, and that the plaintiffs' justifications for introducing the evidence did not establish relevance.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a hospital seeking mandamus relief after a trial court denied its motion to dismiss health care liability claims alleging negligent credentialing of a physician, on the ground that the plaintiffs' expert report was inadequate. The Texas Supreme Court held that mandamus is available to enforce the statutory requirement for qualified expert reports filed shortly after suit in health care cases. The opinion reasoned that the plaintiffs' expert lacked demonstrated knowledge or experience regarding hospital credentialing standards or applicable guidelines, that such claims involve a specialized standard of care, and that the Legislature's goal of reducing litigation costs and improving access to medical care requires courts to enforce the expert-report deadline through mandamus when necessary. The Court concluded the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that appeal was not an adequate remedy.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Arthur Moritz, an employee of an independent contractor delivering parts for General Electric, who was injured when he fell from a loading ramp at GE's warehouse while securing his load. Moritz sued GE and others alleging negligence in both activities and premises conditions, claiming GE failed to warn about the lack of guardrails on the ramp. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants, as landowners owe no duty to warn independent contractors' employees of obvious hazards they already know about, and GE did not retain control over the specific activity of securing the load. The court reasoned that duties are limited to concealed hazards in premises liability and must match the control retained over the contractor's work for negligent activity claims.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

In Perry Homes v. Cull, homeowners who purchased a house with structural and drainage defects sued the builder and warranty companies for damages, initially opposing arbitration in their pleadings and court statements while pursuing extensive discovery under court rules. After most discovery was complete and a trial date was set, the plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration under the same clause they had previously resisted, and the trial court granted the motion despite noting the delay, resulting in an $800,000 arbitration award. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs waived their arbitration rights by substantially invoking the litigation process before switching, vacating the award and remanding for trial, as their conduct rebutted the presumption against waiver.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

This case concerns a 16-year-old juvenile, H.V., who was questioned by police in connection with a fatal shooting and gave two statements after being warned by a magistrate; the trial court suppressed the second statement and the recovered gun on the ground that H.V. had invoked his right to counsel. The Texas Supreme Court first determined that it possessed jurisdiction over the state's interlocutory appeal from the suppression order under the 2003 amendments to the Family Code and the court's general civil jurisdictional statutes, because the court of appeals opinion created a conflict with prior precedent. Reviewing the invocation issue de novo, the court held that H.V.'s statements to the magistrate were not an unambiguous request for counsel under the applicable objective standard and therefore reversed the suppression of the gun while affirming suppression of the statement in part.

criminal lawprocedurefamily lawcivil rights

The case involved a medical malpractice suit filed by Dewayne Funderburk on behalf of his daughter against Dr. Rory Lewis for negligent treatment of a broken wrist. After the plaintiff served an allegedly inadequate expert report, the trial court denied the doctor's motion to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351, and the Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals had jurisdiction because section 51.014(a)(9) allows immediate appeal from a trial court's denial of relief under section 74.351(b) for failure to serve an expert report. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase "an expert report has not been served" in subsection (b) encompasses both absent and deficient reports, as clarified by the extension provision in subsection (c).

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a workers' compensation carrier's subrogation rights after Charles Ledbetter was electrocuted on the job. Texas Mutual paid benefits to his widow and minor son, then intervened in a third-party tort suit that settled for $4.5 million. The plaintiffs nonsuited claims involving the beneficiaries, allocated the entire settlement to the estate and attorney fees, and obtained trial-court approval that excluded the carrier and struck its intervention. The Texas Supreme Court held that state law requires any recovery from a tortfeasor to be paid first to the carrier until it is reimbursed in full, and therefore reversed the judgment approving the settlement structure.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a Texas divorce where the husband sold the couple's community donut shop to third-party buyers without the wife's consent, transferred the proceeds to his parents in Korea, and then filed for divorce. The wife sued the buyers, their attorney, and her husband for claims including conversion, conspiracy, and fraudulent disposition of community assets; the trial court voided the sale (ordering the buyers to return the shop to the wife), allowed each spouse to keep other assets in their possession, and entered a large damages judgment against the buyers and attorney but not the husband. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment against the attorney, holding there was no evidence he converted any of the wife's property and that Texas law does not recognize independent tort claims between spouses for wrongful disposition of community property. Instead, such issues must be addressed through the trial court's just-and-right division of the community estate or by recovering the property from the spouse who took it. The court emphasized that conspiracy claims require an underlying tort, which was absent here under community-property principles.

family lawpropertytorts & liability

The case involved whether an auto auction company could be held strictly liable or negligent for auctioning a defective Ford Explorer that was later resold and involved in a fatal rollover accident. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the auctioneer was not subject to strict product liability. The court reasoned that section 402A of the Restatement of Torts limits strict liability to those engaged in the business of selling or placing products in the stream of commerce, and auctioneers act merely as agents facilitating sales rather than sellers for their own account. The court also found no basis for a negligence claim, as the auctioneer owed no duty to later purchasers.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether a Texas statute limiting discovery in health-care liability claims until an expert report is served also bars presuit depositions under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the statute applies and prohibits such depositions until the required report is provided. The core reasoning was that the law stays all discovery except for three narrow exceptions (written discovery, depositions on written questions, and nonparty discovery), none of which include Rule 202 depositions. The court granted mandamus relief to enforce the stay, noting that the issue was recurring and could not be effectively corrected after final judgment.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability