Ross E. Doughty

This case arose after a fire damaged one of two houses on property owned by Mr. Taylor, who had assumed a mortgage held by Colonial Savings Association; Taylor sued Colonial for negligence, alleging that Colonial had gratuitously undertaken to obtain fire insurance covering the property but failed to insure the damaged house. A jury found that Colonial had undertaken to provide coverage, was aware of both structures, negligently failed to relay that information to the insurance agent, and that this negligence proximately caused Taylor's loss, while also failing to find Taylor negligent in examining the policy or obtaining separate insurance. The trial court granted Colonial's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, but the court of civil appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Taylor. The Texas Supreme Court reversed both lower courts and remanded, holding that the evidence supported the jury's negligence findings so JNOV was improper, and that the disputed issue of Taylor's reliance on Colonial required a finding by the trial court under Rule 279 since it was not submitted to the jury.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a mother's attempt to overturn a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to her child through an equitable bill of review. The mother alleged that respondents had fraudulently induced her to sign an affidavit relinquishing her parental rights by misrepresenting that it would only appoint them as guardians and not lead to adoption, and she claimed she did not learn of the termination until after the fact. The trial court granted a directed verdict dismissing the bill of review for lack of a prima facie case, and the court of civil appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the mother's testimony raised a fact issue of extrinsic fraud sufficient to present to a jury when viewed in the light most favorable to her, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned whether Texas' Open Records Act required the Industrial Accident Board to release specific details from workers' compensation claims—including file numbers, claimant names and Social Security numbers, employer names, injury descriptions, and attorney names—to the Industrial Foundation of the South, a nonprofit representing employers. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the requested information is generally public information subject to mandatory disclosure under the Act, except for claims involving genital injuries, and that the Board must make it available for inspection and copying. The court reasoned that the Act broadly defines public information and prohibits agencies from inquiring into the requester's purpose or motives, while recognizing narrow exceptions for information deemed confidential by law or judicial decision and applying the Act to both pre- and post-effective-date claims. The Court of Civil Appeals' ruling allowing discovery into the Foundation's motives was reversed on this point.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether Percy Griffin, as president of Greenway Building Company, became personally liable as drawer on three company checks totaling $3,950 that he signed without indicating his representative capacity; the checks were issued to Ellinger for construction work but were dishonored for insufficient funds. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals held Griffin personally liable, and the Texas Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Texas Business and Commerce Code sections 3.413(b) and 3.403(b)(2), an authorized representative who signs a check naming the principal but not showing representative capacity is personally obligated unless the parties otherwise established that understanding; here the face of the checks did not indicate representative capacity, and findings showed Ellinger was unaware of Griffin's role and looked to him personally for payment.

business & regulatory

This case involved a widow's claim for additional benefits under an accidental death rider to her husband's group life insurance policy after he died from multiple gunshot wounds ruled a homicide. The insurer paid basic life benefits but denied the accidental death claim, arguing the death was not accidental or was excluded due to involvement in a felonious act; the trial court directed a verdict for the insurer, but the appeals court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that evidence created a fact issue on whether the death was accidental when viewed from the insured's perspective under the Hutcherson test, and that a presumption of innocence supported a finding that the felonious act exclusion did not apply absent contrary evidence.

business & regulatory

In Kelley v. Rinkle, the petitioner sued the respondent for libel after Rinkle submitted a false report to a credit bureau stating that Kelley owed $277 for medical services, which led to credit denials; the suit was filed about a year after the report but within a year of Kelley's discovery of it. The trial court granted summary judgment to Rinkle on statute of limitations grounds under the one-year limit for libel actions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the discovery rule applies so that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff learns or reasonably should have learned of the defamatory credit report. The court reasoned that plaintiffs typically have no reason to suspect such a private report until credit is denied, and applying the rule prevents unfair barring of claims while balancing evidence-preservation policies, though it would not apply to public defamations like those in newspapers.

torts & liabilityprocedure