Appeals
Wright & Close, LLP’s Appellate Matters of Note- MCI Sales & Service, Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2010).
W&C successfully represented a motor coach manufacturer in an appeal from a $17.5 million products-liability judgment arising from injuries incurred by several passengers in a highly publicized accident near Hewlitt, Texas. The court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court agreed with us that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the jury to consider whether the bus driver and his employer were responsible for the accident. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
Read the majority opinion.
Read the dissenting opinion.
Watch the oral argument.(Tom Wright argued on behalf of MCI)
- In re B.W., 313 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. 2010).
In a case that generated national attention, W&C successfully represented (pro bono) a 13 year-old girl adjudicated as a delinquent on a charge of prostitution. The Texas Supreme Court held that, because a minor cannot legally consent to sex, a minor cannot commit prostitution as that offense is defined by the Penal Code, and that the Texas Legislature did not intend to "transform a child victim of adult sexual exploitation into a juvenile offender."
Read the Texas Supreme Court's opinion.
Read the dissenting opinion.
Watch the oral argument.
(Mike Choyke argued on behalf of B.W.)
- Louis M. Ditta v. Susan C. Conte, 298 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. 2009).
W&C represented a guardian in a successful appeal from a court of appeals decision. In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously held that no limitations period restricts a court's discretion to remove a trustee, and that the guardian's suit seeking removal of the trustee was not barred.
Read the Texas Supreme Court's opinion.
Watch the oral argument.(Tom Wright argued on behalf of Louis Ditta)
- SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Investments (USA) Corp., 275 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2008).
In this products-liability indemnity action, W&C represented Gladstrong, a domestic importer of an allegedly defective product manufactured by a Chinese corporation and distributed by a Hong Kong corporation (the parent company of our client). In a unanimous decision, the Texas Supreme Court held that a non-manufacturer that does nothing more than facilitate entry of a product into the United States has no duty to indemnify a seller either under the indemnity statute (Chapter 82 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) or under the common law. The court also rejected use of the “single business enterprise” theory to impose the obligations of one corporation onto another.
Read the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion.
Watch the oral argument.
(Mike Choyke argued on behalf of Gladstrong)
- Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008).
W&C partnered with the late Rusty McMains to obtain reversal of a $4 million judgment in a personal-injury case against our client, Reliance Steel. In a unanimous opinion, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Reliance Steel’s annual gross revenues ($1.9 billion) and that this evidence probably caused the jury to award damages that were inflated substantially.
Read the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion.
Watch the oral argument.
(Tom Wright presented the opening argument on behalf of Reliance Steel)
- Unauthorized Practice of law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co., 261 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2008).
In a widely-reported victory for the insurance industry, the Texas Supreme Court held that the use of staff counsel to defend policyholders who are sued by third parties did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. W&C successfully represented American Home (alongside Professor Bill Dorsaneo on behalf of Travelers) in defending this practice against a challenge by the Texas State Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.
Read the Texas Supreme Court’s majority opinion.
Listen to the oral argument.(Tom Wright argued on behalf of American Home)
- National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Crocker, 246 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2008).
W&C obtained the reversal of a $1 million judgment against our client, National Union, for allegedly breaching its duty to defend an additional insured under a CGL policy issued to a nursing home. Having tried and lost her personal-injury claims against the named insured based on the conduct of its employee, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the employee and then sued National Union for allegedly breaching its duty to defend the employee, an additional insured under the policy. On certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously held that an insurance company has no duty to defend an additional insured who does not forward suit papers or otherwise ask for a defense under the named insured’s CGL policy.
Read the Texas Supreme Court's opinion.
Listen to the oral argument.(Tom Wright argued on behalf of National Union)
- Qwest International Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 167 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam).
W&C represented Qwest in post-trial motions and on appeal from a jury verdict awarding $350 million in exemplary damages for alleged malice in cutting another company’s fiber-optic cable during Qwest’s cable-laying operations. The punitive-damage award was capped by the trial court and subsequently eliminated by the Texas Supreme Court.
- Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 77 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. 2002).
W&C founding partner Tom Wright handled this case in the Texas Supreme Court. This case dealt with whether an excess insurer violated any duty to avoid unreasonable delays in settlement. The Supreme Court analyzed both common law and statutory duties and determined that because no definitive offer was made to settle the claims within the policy limits, National Union had not violated any duty. The Court interpreted the statutory unfair claims settlement provisions to coincide with common law Stowers claims, thus avoiding potentially inconsistent duties.
- ClearValue, Inc., et al. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., et al., 668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
W&C successfully represented a major chemical manufacturer in the defense of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims in the Eastern District of Texas. Following trial, the district court granted a JMOL in our clients’ favor on the plaintiffs’ trade secret claims. On appeal, the court of appeals found that the patent at issue was invalid, and rendered judgment in favor of our client.
- Blum’s Furniture Company, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1400 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).
W&C defended an insurer from a bad faith claim after the insured invoked the appraisal provision of the policy. Applying Texas law, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client, holding that, when an insurer timely pays an appraisal award, there is no breach of contract.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al. v. Stockdick Land Co., No. 14-09-00617-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1516 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, n.p.h.).
W&C represented a tax-sale purchaser of residential property in a dispute with the mortgage company over whether the mortgage lien was reinstated. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of our client.
- Rapid Settlements, Ltd., et al. v. Settlement Funding, LLC, No. 14-10-00902-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 10, 2012, no pet.).
W&C successfully represented a factoring company in an appeal from a temporary injunction obtained by a competitor. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order, holding that the injunction constituted an unreasonable restraint on trade.
- Harris County Appraisal District v. Riverway Holdings, LP, et al., No. 14-09-00786-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1047 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied).
In an ad valorem tax dispute, W&C represented a commercial property owner in defense of its judgment against HCAD establishing the appraised value of the property in question. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in our client’s favor.
- AMS Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing v. K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc., 357 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. dism’d).
In this breach of contract dispute between an employer and a staff leasing company, W&C represented an employer sued by its employee after the staff leasing company failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance to cover the injured worker. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in our client’s favor, holding the trial court had jurisdiction to decide this dispute and the jury’s findings were supported by the evidence.
- Vinmar Trade Finance, Ltd. v. Utility Trailers de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 336 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.).
W&C successfully defended a Mexican company in a dispute over the purchase of $5 million worth of commercial trailers. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of our client, and upheld the dismissal of all of the plaintiff’s claims on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Delta Seaboard Well Service, Inc. v. Duke, No. 09-10-00209-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7047 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, no pet.).
- AValon RF, Inc. v. WiFi Wireless, Inc., D056052, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1362 (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Feb. 24, 2011) (unpublished).
W&C successfully obtained a new trial for a defendant from a $3.2 million jury verdict and, on appeal, the California court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of our client.
- Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates, No. 04-10-00041-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1272 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 24, 2011, n.p.h.).
W&C represented an attorney in a dispute concerning payment for the representation of a corporate officer in a federal, white-collar criminal prosecution. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment in our client’s favor, holding that the promise by the officer’s employer to pay for his defense was not subject to the statute of frauds.
- GSF Energy, LLC v. Padron, No. 01-09-00622-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 948 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 10, 2011, n.p.h.).
W&C represented a plant operator in a suit brought by the employee of an independent contractor, who was killed by falling debris inside a tank he was cleaning. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s $10 million judgment against our client and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Cleveland Regional Medical Center, LP, et al. v. Celtic Properties, LC, 323 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, pet. denied).
In a commercial lease dispute, W&C represented a landlord on appeal from a judgment in its favor against its tenant. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of our client regarding the tenant’s failure to remit unpaid rents, and remanded our client’s tort claims regarding damage to the leased premises for a new trial.
W&C represented a defendant on appeal from an adverse verdict in an 18-wheeler accident. The court of appeals reversed the judgment against our client and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Carpenter v. Phelps, No. 01-09-00203-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2414 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 31, 2010, n.p.h.).
W&C represented the defendants in a dispute over an oil and gas investment, on appeal from the trial court’s judgment against our clients for nearly $500,000 in damages and fees. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and rendered judgment in our clients’ favor that the plaintiffs take nothing.
- Pate v. MSDW Office Partners, LP, No. 05-09-00423-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6239 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied).
W&C defended a building owner against a premises liability claim. The court of appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of W&C's client.
- In re Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., et al., No. 14-09-00086-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1234 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (mem. op.)
W&C successfully challenged a trial court order severely restricting the scope of discovery necessary to defend against the opposing party's bad faith claims. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to vacate the order.
- Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. Konecny, 290 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).
W&C represented the general contractor and subcontractors in an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment in favor of a plaintiff who collected workers' compensation insurance benefits following an injury on the jobsite. W&C obtained a reversal of the trial court's judgment and a rendition of judgment in our clients' favor on all claims.
- In re AIG Aviation (Texas), Inc., No. 04-08-00454-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6915 (Tex. App.—San Antonio September, 10, 2008) (mem. op.).
W&C successfully challenged a trial court order, signed after judgment, awarding substantial litigation expenses to our client's opponent. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to vacate the award.
- Pacha v. Casey, No. 14-07-00150-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5490 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)
W&C successfully represented a plaintiff in this appeal filed by a physician challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiff's expert reports and the trial court's decision not to dismiss the case. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in our client's favor.
- A&B Bolt & Supply, Inc. v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., No. 01-07-01069-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 922 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)
W&C represented the defendants in a bitter fight over “trade secrets” allegedly misappropriated by the plaintiff’s former employees and their new employer. W&C succeeded in obtaining the reversal of a temporary injunction against our clients. W&C’s attorneys then worked closely with trial lawyers from other firms on evidentiary issues, the jury charge, and other matters during a month-long trial. These efforts resulted in a complete defense verdict.
- American Heritage, Inc. v. Nevada Gold & Casino, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)
W&C represented Nevada Gold, which had obtained a judgment for over $8 million based on American Heritage’s breach of a casino operating contract. The court of appeals affirmed as to all of the contractual damages awarded by the jury.
- Tenneessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Technip USA Corp., No. 01-06-00535-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6419 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).
W&C represented Technip USA and its parent corporation in this appeal. The jury awarded TGP over $18 million for delays and allegedly defective work arising from a construction project. The trial court eliminated most of the delay-related claims under a provision in the parties’ contract excluding indirect and consequential damages. The court of appeals largely affirmed the trial court’s judgment, agreeing with us that the majority of TGP’s claimed damages were not recoverable under the contract. The appellate court also eliminated TGP’s claimed damages for alleged defects for failure to provide notice of those claims as required under the contract and rejected TGP’s attempt to impose liability on Technip USA’s parent company. The appeal is currently pending on a motion for rehearing.
Read the opinion.
- Schott v. Knight, No. 01-06-00727-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 10072 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)
W&C successfully represented the defendants in the plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment awarding her zero damages for past and future mental anguish she allegedly suffered from an automobile accident. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- Kipp v. Dyncorp Technical Services, LLC, No. 01-06-00906-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8902 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)
The court of appeals affirmed a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of W&C’s clients in a suit alleging premises liability.
Read the opinion.
- Encompass Power Services, Inc. v. Engineering & Construction Co., No. 05-20987, 224 Fed. Appx. 329, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6432 (5th Cir. 2007).
W&C represented a general contractor seeking to join a responsible third-party subcontractor into an arbitration proceeding filed against the general contractor. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order requiring the subcontractor to join in the arbitration.
Read the opinion.
- In re Gupta, 263 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding)
W&C represented a steel mill in response to a mandamus proceeding filed by a scrap metal dealer challenging “death penalty” sanctions imposed by the trial court against the dealer. The court of appeals denied the mandamus and refused to disturb the sanctions. One justice wrote a lengthy concurring opinion in support of our position that the sanctions were justified
- Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 218 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).
W&C represented Lexington Insurance Company in the appeal from a summary judgment in favor of USF&G in a coverage dispute. The trial court held that USF&G had no duty to indemnify for a settlement, based on USF&G’s allegations that Coastal, the insured, provided late notice, settled the underlying matter without consent, and failed to cooperate. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings. The Supreme Court denied our opponent’s petition for review.
- Cross Creek Homes, Inc. v. First Continental Mortgage Co., No. 04-05-00727-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8942 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.)
W&C represented a lender in an appeal filed by a manufactured home seller from a summary judgment on the home seller’s claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and conspiracy. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in our client’s favor.
- Ellwood Texas Forge Corp. v. Jones, 214 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).
W&C represented a premises owner in an appeal from an adverse judgment in a case involving a worksite injury. The court of appeals held the premises owner owed no duty to the independent contractor’s employee because there was no evidence the owner retained control over the scope of work. The Texas Supreme Court denied the employee’s petition for review.
- Williams v. LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas, 207 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.).
W&C represented a hospital system in the plaintiffs’ appeal from a low-damages jury verdict. The court of appeals granted our motion to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that, by accepting the benefits of the judgment (which the defendants had satisfied in full) the plaintiffs were estopped from pursuing an appeal.
- Magana v. Hammer & Steel, No. 05-20337 (5th Cir. 2006).
W&C assisted trial counsel in preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law in this negligence and products-liability action arising from a worker’s fall. Our proposed findings were largely adopted by the district court in rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of our client. W&C then handled the appeal before the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment just two days after oral argument.
- Argovitz v. Argovitz, No. 14-04-00885-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 8795 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).
W&C successfully obtained a dismissal of the appeal from the trial court’s judgment in our client’s favor in a divorce proceeding, based on our opponent’s voluntary acceptance of certain benefits from that judgment.
- Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Pearson, No. 07-03-00340-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 8155 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.)
W&C obtained reversal of a $1 million judgment against our client in a dispute over coverage under a Texas commercial auto policy. The court of appeals agreed with our interpretation of the relevant policy language and held that there was no coverage for injuries that occurred after the driver exited the vehicle.
- Wilson v. K.W.G., Inc., No. 11-03-00084-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 8019 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2004, no pet.)
W&C represented a bar owner who had been sued for actual and exemplary damages by a patron who was assaulted by an intoxicated customer. The trial court granted our motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and disregarded the jury’s award of punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in our client’s favor.
- American Home Assurance Company v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 378 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2004).
The court of appeals reversed the judgment against our client, American Home, for over $2 million in attorney’s fees and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Feldman/Matz Interests, L.L.P. v. Settlement Capitol Corp., 140 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding)
In this mandamus proceeding, W&C successfully argued that the Federal Arbitration Act did not authorize the trial court to conduct a hearing on a request for a temporary injunction before submitting the case to arbitration.
- City of Galveston v. Garza, No. 10-01-00031-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7255 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. denied).
The court of appeals reversed a $10 million judgment against the City of Galveston and the Flagship Hotel in a case in which two adults drove off the pier at the hotel and drowned in the Gulf of Mexico. The Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents’ petition for review.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Aguilera-Sanchez, No. 04-02-00458-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4846 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied).
W&C successfully represented Wal-Mart on appeal from a $20 million judgment for malicious prosecution in a mistaken identity case. The court of appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment, and the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review.
- Kings Park Apartments v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 101 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).
W&C’s attorneys represented National Union in this contentious litigation that lasted for over eleven years and resulted in a bad faith verdict that the plaintiffs argued was worth $16 million. We convinced the trial judge to reduce the verdict to a $2.5 million judgment. The court of appeals then reversed and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing on their claims. The Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for review.
- Texas Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Quach, 95 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).
W&C represented Texas Real Estate Holdings in an appeal of a $1.1 million judgment rendered against the company in a premises liability case. The court of appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment, and the Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents’ petition for review.
- In re American Home Assurance Co., 88 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding).
The Texarkana Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s discovery rulings against our client were an abuse of discretion. In addition to other significant rulings, this case is the first published opinion in Texas to hold that an insurance company’s “reserves” information, essentially an internal evaluation of the case, is not discoverable.
- Lexington Insurance Co. v. Buckingham Gate, Ltd., 993 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied).
W&C founding partner Tom Wright represented Lexington following an adverse verdict of over $20 million based on alleged Insurance Code violations and misrepresentations. The trial court granted our post-verdict motion, in part, and rendered a judgment of $2 million against Lexington. The court of appeals reversed the entire judgment, ruling that the plaintiff should take nothing against Lexington, and the Texas Supreme Court denied our opponent’s petition for review.