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

The case involved an automobile liability insurance policy under which the insurer had the duty to defend covered claims and the right to control that defense. The insured refused the insurer's tendered defense in a Dallas County suit because his personal attorneys sought to transfer venue to Matagorda County, leading the insured to sue the insurer for breach of the duty to defend and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The trial court and court of appeals ruled for the insured, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the insurer did not breach its obligations. The court reasoned that a disagreement over venue was not sufficient grounds to strip the insurer of its contractual right to conduct the defense, that the insurer had timely tendered a defense through its chosen counsel, and that the statute on prompt claims handling did not apply or was not violated here. The court rendered judgment that the insured take nothing.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved negligence claims by Faye Sykes against Harris County and jail official Carl Borchers, alleging that her husband contracted tuberculosis and died due to the county's failure to quarantine an infected inmate or warn him while he was incarcerated. The trial court granted the county's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims with prejudice for lack of waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, then granted summary judgment to Borchers. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the county but held it was without prejudice and did not bar the claims against Borchers under section 101.106. The Texas Supreme Court held that a dismissal on a plea to the jurisdiction for failure to state a cognizable claim under the Act is with prejudice because it fully adjudicates the immunity issue, and that it qualifies as a judgment barring further suits against employees arising from the same subject matter, resulting in a take-nothing judgment.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes, a non-subscriber employer provided an employee with a benefits plan containing a liability waiver in exchange for medical and wage benefits after a workplace injury caused by a forklift accident. The employee accepted benefits under the plan but later sued the employer and co-worker for negligence; the employer moved for summary judgment arguing the waiver barred the suit. The Texas Supreme Court held that employers must satisfy the fair notice requirements of the express negligence doctrine and conspicuousness for such waivers to be enforceable, applying precedent from Lawrence v. CDB Servs. The court affirmed the reversal of summary judgment because a fact issue existed on whether the employee had actual knowledge of the plan terms, and remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Jack Ridgway, who suffered burns when his used Ford F-150 truck caught fire while he was driving it. Ridgway and his wife sued Ford for strict products liability and negligence, alleging a manufacturing defect in the truck. The trial court granted Ford's Rule 166a(i) summary judgment motion, and the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' partial reversal on the products liability claim, rendering judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing. The court held that the plaintiffs' evidence, including an expert's visual inspection and opinion that an electrical malfunction in the engine compartment was suspected, failed to raise more than a scintilla of evidence that a defect existed when the truck left Ford and caused the fire. The opinion explained that a manufacturing defect claim requires proof the product deviated from specifications in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous, and principles akin to res ipsa loquitur do not permit an inference of defect without such evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over lease and letter agreements between physicians and the owners of a women's health center that combined hospital and office space. The physicians alleged that the owners were contractually required to keep the hospital operating for the full term of the lease after deciding to close it due to financial losses, and they sought damages and injunctive relief. The trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of the physicians, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreements were unambiguous and did not obligate the owners to operate the hospital throughout the lease period. The court reasoned that the contracts imposed only a duty to use reasonable efforts regarding insurance approvals, not continuous operation, and noted that the physicians had not pleaded or pursued an implied covenant theory. The Court rendered judgment that the physicians take nothing.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproperty

This case involved royalty owners in Crockett County suing Union Pacific Resources Group and affiliates for allegedly underpaying gas royalties by selling production to affiliates at index prices below what the affiliates later received from third parties. The plaintiffs sought class certification on claims that the defendants breached an implied covenant to reasonably market the gas and obtain the best price attainable, including challenges to affiliate marketing fees. The trial court certified a class of royalty owners whose leases involved affiliate transactions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that class certification was improper because the proposed class included both proceeds-based leases, to which an implied marketing covenant applies under Texas law, and market-value leases, to which it does not. This difference meant there were insufficient common questions of law or fact to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This medical malpractice case arose when parents sued several physicians, including Dr. Roberts, after their newborn daughter suffered permanent injuries from acidosis and related complications allegedly caused by delayed treatment and a malfunctioning ventilator at a Texas hospital. The jury awarded damages that included $75,001 to the parents for past and future loss of filial consortium, and the court of appeals upheld the consortium claim along with other aspects of the verdict. The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas does not recognize a common-law cause of action allowing parents to recover for loss of consortium due to non-fatal injuries to a child, reversing that portion of the judgment while affirming the remainder, including rulings on expert testimony admissibility and settlement credits. The court reasoned that recognizing such a claim would be inconsistent with established Texas precedent limiting consortium recoveries in personal-injury cases and that any change should come from the legislature.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefamily law

This case involved a class action lawsuit brought by Texas cities against gas companies to recover unpaid franchise fees, in which several unnamed class member cities sought to opt out of the class before a proposed settlement. The trial court denied their opt-out requests and approved the settlement, and the court of appeals dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to intervene. The Texas Supreme Court held that unnamed class members need not formally intervene to appeal objections to a class settlement or opt-out denials, following U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and that the cities' attorney had authority under existing contracts to file opt-out notices without requiring specific authorization via an open meeting. Accordingly, the Court reversed and rendered judgment that six of the seven petitioning cities had successfully opted out of the class, while the seventh had not, rendering other issues moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Holubec v. Brandenberger, neighboring landowners sued sheep ranch operators alleging that a newly constructed feedlot created a nuisance through odors, flies, dust, noise, and lights affecting their property and residence. The trial court found the feedlot to be a nuisance, awarded damages to some plaintiffs, and issued a permanent injunction restricting the operations, which the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment, dissolved the injunction, and remanded the case, concluding that the jury charge was erroneous because it failed to properly submit the Right to Farm Act defense on whether the complained-of conditions had existed substantially unchanged since the operation began, that the error was preserved by objection and harmful, and that the injunction could not stand given the charge error.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a negligence claim in which a customer sued Wal-Mart after being struck by falling decorative reindeer while shopping; the customer later underwent neck surgery and alleged the accident caused his injuries. At trial, the court gave the jury a spoliation instruction creating a presumption that the missing reindeer, if preserved, would have been unfavorable to Wal-Mart. The court of appeals affirmed the resulting judgment for the plaintiffs, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that Wal-Mart had no duty to preserve the reindeer because they were innocently sold or discarded in the ordinary course of business before Wal-Mart received notice of any claim, making the instruction both erroneous and harmful in this closely contested case, and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, plaintiff Harold Whitley sued the transit authority for personal injuries after another passenger attacked him following the bus driver's decision to eject Whitley from the vehicle and later drop off his attacker nearby. The trial court dismissed the case, finding sovereign immunity barred the suit under the Texas Tort Claims Act because the injuries did not arise from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle. The court of appeals reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, concluding there was no waiver of immunity as the claim centered on the driver's failure to supervise passengers rather than any use of the bus itself.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether a construction subcontractor timely filed a lien affidavit under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code to claim funds retained by a property owner. After the owner terminated the original general contractor, the subcontractor filed its affidavit 31 days later but before replacement contractors finished the project. The trial court and court of appeals held the filing timely because work was completed only when the entire project ended in July 1998. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the statutory terms "work" and "completion" are defined in relation to a specific original contract, so the 30-day period began when that contract was terminated on April 14, 1998, making the affidavit untimely. The court therefore rendered judgment that the subcontractor take nothing on its lien claim.

property

This case involved a dispute over whether a subcontractor could enforce mechanic's liens against a property owner for unpaid work after the original general contractor was terminated. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the subcontractor, holding that the liens were not properly perfected. The court reasoned that both the statutory retainage lien and the fund-trapping lien must be evaluated based on the original contract, and since the lien affidavit was filed more than thirty days after the original contract was terminated and no funds were owed to the original contractor, the owner was not liable.

property

In Centex Homes v. Buecher, homeowners who purchased new homes sued the builder for fraud, negligence, DTPA violations, and other claims arising from alleged construction defects, after signing standard sales contracts that included a limited express warranty in place of the implied warranties of habitability and good and workmanlike construction. The trial court dismissed the proposed class action seeking to invalidate the waivers, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court held that the implied warranty of habitability cannot be waived except in limited circumstances not present here, while the implied warranty of good and workmanlike construction may be disclaimed if the parties' express agreement sufficiently describes the manner, performance, or quality of construction; it therefore affirmed the remand to the trial court.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability