The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held (again) that the improper denial of a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Codes is subject to review by mandamus. The case arose from a collision between a crane truck and a bus. Plaintiff was a
responsible third party
Mandamus is Proper When Leave Denied to Join Responsible Third Parties
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently weighed in (again?) on whether a trial court’s erroneous ruling regarding designation of a responsible third party is subject to mandamus. In this case, the trial court denied relator’s motion to designate a responsible third party. The trial court did not allow relator to replead. A divided panel held…
CPRC 33.004(e) not applicable to vicariously liable defendants
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston (First) Court of Appeals recently held that section 33.004(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does revive claims against defendants whose liability is solely vicarious.
Section 33.004(e) allows plaintiffs to join as defendants those designated as responsible third parties notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs in this case filed suit against Wells Fargo…
Responsible Third Parties and Statutes of Repose
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
A few weeks ago I wrote about an opinion issued by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, wherein that court held that Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.004(e) applied to a statute of repose to revive the claims against a responsible third party. Click here for that discussion. I questioned whether Section 33.004(e)’s…
Responsible Third Party Statute and Statutes of Repose
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Summary Judgment
I’ve wanted to write something about Boenig v. Starnair, Inc. since I first read it because I believe the analysis is incorrect.
This case involves the intersection of the responsible third party statute and a statute of repose.
Boenig sued contractor Pulte in November 2005 for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell through the attic floor of a home Pulte built. On July 19, 2007, Pulte filed a motion for leave to designate Starnair as a responsible third party. Starnair was a subcontractor that performed the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installation in the home. On August 23, 2007, Boenig filed her fourth amended petition in which she joined Starnair as a defendant.
Starnair moved for summary judgment in reliance upon the ten-year statute of repose set out in Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.009. The trial court granted the motion and Boenig appealed.Continue Reading Responsible Third Party Statute and Statutes of Repose