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).

January 15, 2010 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented Sears, Roebuck and Co. in the appeal of a $61 million judgment based on a jury verdict that Sears breached a bond indenture by prematurely redeeming corporate bonds held by a number of institutional investors. The Dallas Court of Appeals sustained Sears’ no evidence challenge because the investors failed to present any evidence of breach, and thus reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the investors. After Sears responded to the investors’ petition for review, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition. Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. AIG Annuity Ins. Co., 270 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

January 15, 2010 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented a national law firm in the appeal of a $1.2 million judgment in a legal malpractice case arising out of a complex civil suit.  The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that a favorable judgment in the underlying suit would have been collectible from the defendant in the underlying suit. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld v. NDR, 299 S.W. 3d 106 (Tex. 2009).