Thomas R. Phillips

The case involved an employee who sued her former employer for sexual harassment under the Texas Labor Code and for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her supervisor's repeated offensive conduct, including telling dirty jokes and making inappropriate remarks. The trial court and court of appeals allowed recovery under both claims, with the employee electing mental anguish and punitive damages under the tort claim while taking other damages under the statutory claim. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that when the core of the complaint is sexual harassment, the plaintiff must pursue remedies solely under the statutory claim unless additional unrelated facts support an independent tort claim. The Court reasoned that conduct supporting a harassment claim is typically outrageous but does not, as a matter of law, satisfy the high threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress absent a pattern of severely abusive behavior intended to cause severe distress.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved parents suing a hospital and doctors for negligence after their fetus was stillborn, seeking damages under Texas wrongful death and survival statutes as well as the mother's personal injury claim, and arguing that barring such claims for stillborn fetuses violated equal protection. The Supreme Court of Texas held that parents cannot bring wrongful death or survival actions for a stillborn child because the Legislature did not intend the statutes' terms 'individual' or 'person' to include an unborn fetus, and this exclusion does not deny equal protection. The court further held that the mother could proceed with her own medical malpractice claim for mental anguish. It reversed the court of appeals in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, relying on prior precedent interpreting the statutes and finding no constitutional mandate to expand them.

torts & liabilityhealthcarecivil rights

This case involved a legal malpractice claim by Turtur & Associates against their attorneys Alexander and his firm, alleging that negligence in handling an underlying adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court caused them to lose and pay damages. The trial court found no evidence of causation without expert testimony and ruled for the defendants, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the causal link was obvious. The Supreme Court of Texas decided that expert testimony on causation was required because the connection between the attorneys' actions and the outcome was not a matter of common understanding for lay jurors, and since none was provided, it reversed and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved hundreds of Shell lessee dealers who claimed that Shell violated the good faith requirement of Texas Business and Commerce Code section 2.305(b) by setting excessively high dealer tank wagon (DTW) prices for gasoline under open-price-term contracts, allegedly to drive the dealers out of business in favor of company-operated stations. The trial court granted summary judgment for Shell, but the court of appeals reversed, finding fact issues regarding Shell's subjective motives. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that the dealers take nothing. The Court held that Shell established good faith as a matter of law because its posted DTW prices were commercially reasonable in the relevant market and were applied uniformly to all dealers, which satisfied the objective standard under the Code regardless of any alleged subjective intent. Evidence of the dealers' competitive disadvantage or "captive buyer" status did not raise a fact issue about bad faith in this normal commercial context.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between insurance companies over whether a general liability policy covered claims by patients injured by contaminated anesthetics administered during medical procedures at a surgical center. The patients sued a doctors' association alleging negligence in securing and storing the drugs as well as in their administration. After settling the underlying claims, American Indemnity and the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association sought reimbursement from Utica, the association's general liability insurer at the time of the infections. The Texas Supreme Court held that Utica had a duty to defend under the eight-corners doctrine because the pleadings raised both professional and non-professional negligence, but remanded the indemnity claims because a fact issue existed on whether the injuries were caused by the rendition of professional services. The court reasoned that the policy's professional services exclusion applies only when the insured breached the standard of care in rendering those services.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

This case arose from a tort suit by over two thousand plaintiffs, including many minors, alleging exposure to a hazardous chemical leak, in which defendant KCSI agreed to settle the minors' claims for $300,300 but later sought return of about $85,000 (later reduced) allocated to minors who could not be located or whose parents had not approved releases. KCSI petitioned for mandamus after the trial court approved the full settlement and ordered the funds paid into the court registry, arguing the court abused its discretion by settling claims without proper consent or knowledge of the minors or parents. The Texas Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that KCSI failed to show the lack of an adequate appellate remedy because the temporary deprivation of use of the settlement funds did not amount to a permanent loss of substantial rights. The court did not reach the underlying merits of the settlement approval or the guardian ad litem's authority.

proceduretorts & liability