Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Judgment Against General Contractor Is Reversed Based On Erroneous Jury Charge Submission

Judgment Against General Contractor Is Reversed Based On Erroneous Jury Charge Submission

October 27, 2016 in Case Summaries

 

Led by the advocacy of Carl Cecere, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to reverse a judgment of nearly $1.5 million against general contractor Viking Healthcare in favor of Zeig Electric, a subcontractor, in connection with the construction of a specialty hospital in Sherman, Texas. The appellate court determined that no evidence supported the liability question submitted to the jury, which asked whether Viking and a project manager that was not a party to the subcontract “failed to comply with the Agreement” with Zeig. Despite the absence of evidence, the court remanded the case for a new trial “in the interest of justice.” The Supreme Court denied review after requesting briefing on both Zeig’s petition and its motion for rehearing. Viking Healthcare, LLC v. Zeig Electric, Inc., No. 05‑15‑00835‑CV, 2016 WL 7448335 (Tex. App. — Dallas Oct. 27, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

 

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts, Supreme Court of Texas

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Judgment Against General Contractor Is Reversed Based On Erroneous Jury Charge Submission

Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms $351 Million Judgment in Favor of Highland Capital Affiliate Against Credit Suisse

Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms $351 Million Judgment in Favor of Highland Capital Affiliate Against Credit Suisse.

February 20, 2018 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger assisted the trial team at Reid Collins & Tsai in securing the affirmance of a $351 million judgment in favor of an affiliate of Highland Capital Management against Credit Suisse. The judgment consisted of $211 million in actual damages and $140 million in pre- and post-judgment interest, and was based on fraud and breach of contract claims regarding an inflated appraisal that Credit Suisse used to induce the Highland affiliate to finance the Lake Las Vegas development. Applying New York law, which the parties had chosen to govern their relationship, the Dallas court of appeals rejected Credit Suisse’s argument that certain disclaimers in the loan documents protected it from liability for the falsified appraisal. The court also rejected Credit Suisse’s contention that a jury’s award of out-of-pocket damages for fraudulent inducement foreclosed the trial court from subsequently awarding rescissory damages in a bench trial on the remaining claims. Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch v. Claymore Holdings, LLC, 2018 WL 947902 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas Feb. 20, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

 

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms $351 Million Judgment in Favor of Highland Capital Affiliate Against Credit Suisse

Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker

Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker.

August 22, 2017 in Case Summaries

Levinger PC teamed with trial lawyer Thomas Cook of Zelle LLP to persuade the Dallas Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Cooper Gay Mexico, a reinsurance broker based in Mexico City. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican food manufacturer with plants in Juarez and El Paso, had sought to hold Cooper Gay Mexico liable for more than $25 million as a result of an excess insurer’s refusal to pay Elamex for fire damages to its Juarez plant. After an extensive analysis of Cooper Gay Mexico’s efforts in seeking to obtain the excess insurance and in placing the reinsurance for the excess policy, the court of appeals concluded that Cooper Gay Mexico neither had any contacts with Texas nor sought any benefit by trying to avail itself of jurisdiction in Texas. Rather, the evidence showed that all of Cooper Gay Mexico’s relevant contacts were either with its affiliate in Florida or the excess insurer in Mexico. Cooper Gay Martinez del Rio y Asociados Intermediaros de Reaseguro S.A. de C.V. v. Elamex, S.A. de C.V., No. 05‑16‑01436‑CV, 2017 WL 359960 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas Aug. 22, 2017, no pet.).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mexican Reinsurance Broker

Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

April 6, 2017 in Case Summaries

For a second time, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to reject a trial court order requiring the forced sale of valuable real property over the objection of client Steven Spiritas, a 50% partner in the entity that owns the property.  The trial court had granted partial summary judgment declaring the occurrence of a winding-up event, and then appointed a winding-up representative to sell the partnership’s property.  Spiritas brought a petition for writ of mandamus to challenge the winding-up orders, arguing that the trial court’s appointment of a winding-up representative impermissibly allowed execution on a nonappealable, interlocutory order.  The court of appeals granted Spiritas’s petition, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the execution of a non-final order, and that mandamus relief was available to prevent the property from being sold before Spiritas could exercise his appellate rights.  In re Steven Spiritas, Individually and as Trustee of the Spiritas SF 1999 Trust, No. 05-16-00791-CV, 2017 WL 1281394 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 6, 2017) (orig. proceeding).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.

Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.

February 14, 2017 in Case Summaries

Working closely with Michael Gruber and his trial team at Gruber Elrod Johansen Hail Shank, Jeff Levinger wrote the appellee’s brief that persuaded the Amarillo Court of Appeals to uphold the vacatur of a $2.3 million arbitration award against Raeanne Martin in a dispute among the shareholders of a closely-held Texas corporation.  Although the Court noted that review of an arbitration award is “extraordinarily narrow,” it held that the three-member arbitration panel had exceeded its powers by hearing and deciding the dispute even though the parties had previously signed a Rule 11 settlement agreement.  Having affirmed the vacatur of the award on that ground, the Court did not reach the second basis for vacatur  that the panel also had exceeded its powers by granting relief that was not authorized under the parties’ shareholder agreement.  Higginson v. Martin, No. 07-15-00343-CV, 2017 WL 603626 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Feb. 14, 2017, pet. filed).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.