August 31, 2012 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger was retained to prepare the response brief on the merits on behalf of Talmadge Waldrip, who was catastrophically injured when a 26-foot U-Haul rental truck rolled over him after its parking brake failed.  The Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of negligence on the part of both U-Haul International and U-Haul of Texas.  Nevertheless, it remanded the case for a new trial based on the admission of evidence that other U-Haul trucks in Canada had experienced mechanical failures.  Over the dissent of Justice Lehrmann, the Court held that the evidence of the Canadian defects was not sufficiently similar to the defect in the truck at issue, and that the admission of the evidence was harmful.  U-Haul Intern. Inc. v. Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d 118  (Tex.  2012).

Courts:  Supreme Court of Texas
Subject Matter:  Products Liability & Personal Injury

January 12, 2012 in Case Summaries

In a complex partnership dispute that culminated in a multi-million dollar jury verdict, Jeff Levinger persuaded the Houston First Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment against his client, Douglas Strebel.  Strebel’s former partner, John Wimberly, had obtained a $3.4 million judgment  based on the jury’s findings that Strebel had breached alleged fiduciary duties as both the controlling member of a Delaware LLC and the limited partner of a Texas LP.  The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wimberly’s alleged loss of distributions occurred only at the LP level where the parties had contractually disclaimed any fiduciary duties on the part of the general partner and the controlling member of the general partner.  Strebel v. Wimberly, 371 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied).

Courts: Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter:  Business Litigation

August 29, 2011 in Case Summaries

In a second appeal involving the same lawsuit, Jeff Levinger again successfully represented Martin K. Eby Construction Company in its negligent misrepresentation suit against LAN/STV, an architect and engineer that prepared faulty construction plans and drawings for an extension of the DART rail project.  Following the remand in the first appeal, Eby settled its administrative claim against DART for $4.7  million and proceeded to trial against LAN/STV.  The jury found that LAN/STV had committed negligent misrepresentations that caused Eby $5 million in damages, but the trial court reduced the award to $2,250,000 plus interest based on the jury’s additional finding that LAN/STV was 45% responsible.  On appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals rejected LAN/STV’s arguments regarding the derivative governmental immunity statute, the economic loss doctrine, the evidence of negligent misrepresentations, and the effect of the DART settlement.  The Texas Supreme Court subsequently reversed, holding that the economic loss rule restricted Eby to a breach of contact claim against DART.  Martin K. Eby Construction Co. v. LAN/STV, 350 S.W. 3d 675 (Tex. App. — Dallas Aug. 29, 2011), rev’d, 435 S.W. 30 234(Tex.2014).

Courts: Supreme Court of Texas,  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

August 5, 2011 in Case Summaries

Working closely with trial lawyers Lee Brown, Eric Porterfield, and Mary Alice McLarty, Jeff Levinger successfully represented the family of Andrea Ruiz, who died when the driver’s side airbag in her Kia Spectra failed to deploy in a frontal collision.  The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment that the Ruiz family obtained after a three-week jury trial, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of a defect in the design of the airbag circuitry that caused the nondeployment.  The court also held that Kia was not entitled to claim a presumption of “no-defect” under section 82.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because there is not a federal safety standard that governs the design of airbags or the risk that an airbag would not deploy in a crash. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence and the inapplicability of the no-defect presumption, but remanded for a new trial based on the trial court’s admission of “other similar incidents” evidence. Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 348 S.W. 3d 465  (Tex. App. — Dallas Aug. 5, 2011), rev’d in part,  432 S.W. 30 865 (Tex.2014).

March 28, 2011 in Case Summaries

In a closely-watched case involving shareholder oppression, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld a judgment in favor of Levinger PC client Ann Rupe based on the jury’s finding that she had been oppressed by the officers and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation when they refused her request to meet with potential purchasers of her stock.  The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s order requiring the defendants to buy back Ms. Rupe’s stock as an equitable remedy for their misconduct. In a landmark ruling that redefined the text of shareholder oppression in Texas, the Supreme Court held that the conduct at issue did not satisfy the new definition of oppression, but remanded the case for further analysis of Ms. Rupe’s fiduciary duty claim. Ms. Rupe was represented at trial by Steve Aldous and Charla Aldous.  Ritchie v. Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust, 339 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App. — Dallas), rev’d in part, 443 S.W. 30 856 (Tex.2014).