August 29, 2018 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger led a successful effort to overturn a judgment of $6.2 million in actual damages and $1.2 million in attorney’s fees against The Brandt Companies in a long-running dispute with its subcontractor, Beard Industrial, over the construction of a semiconductor facility in New York.  In reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the evidence conclusively established the existence of a written subcontract between Brandt and Beard, even though a dispute existed between them over one aspect of the scope of Beard’s work.  The Court also agreed with Brandt that Beard’s evidence failed to support the full amount of quantum merit damages awarded by the jury.  Because the jury failed to answer several factual questions necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes, the Court remanded the entire case for a new trial.  Subsequently, the case was resolved in a confidential settlement.  The Brandt Companies, LLC v. Beard Process Solutions, Inc., No. 05-17-00780-CV, 2018 WL 4103210 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2018, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m.) (mem. op.).

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

June 13, 2018 in Case Summaries

In a long-running dispute between Stanley Graff and the purchasers of a multi-million-dollar apartment complex owned by the estate of Graff’s father, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm the probate court’s summary judgment rejecting Graff’s effort to rescind or recover damages arising from the October 2000 purchase of the complex.  Among other rulings, the Court held that Graff’s claims of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud accrued by August 2002 and thus were barred by the four-year statute of limitations; that the independent executor had the authority to sell the real property and thus the transaction should not be rescinded; and that Graff’s claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the purchasers failed because there was no evidence that they assisted an appraiser in his valuation of the property.  Graff v. 2920 Park Grove Venture, Ltd., No. 05-16-01411-CV, 2018 WL 2949158 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Courts:  Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Ethics & Professional Liability

September 13, 2017 in Case Summaries

Working closely with trial lawyer Chris Panatier, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm a jury’s finding that the gross negligence of Goodyear at its tire manufacturing facility in Tyler caused its employee Carl Rogers to be exposed to significant amounts of asbestos, which resulted in his death from mesothelioma. Based on extensive expert testimony and historical data concerning the dangers of asbestos, the court of appeals upheld the jury’s finding that Goodyear’s conduct—especially its failure to monitor its employees’ exposure to asbestos for over ten years—involved an extreme degree of risk, and that Goodyear had subjective awareness of that risk but proceeded with conscious indifference to the safety of its employees. The court also rejected Goodyear’s argument that Rogers had not established causation by adequately ruling out the radiation that was used to successfully treat a previous bout with lung cancer. Finally, over a dissent by Justice Ada Brown, the majority suggested a remittitur of the damages awarded under the exemplary-damages cap statute based on its determination that the evidence did not support the entirety of the award for past and future economic damages. The Texas Supreme Court denied Goodyear’s petition for review after full briefing on the merits. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rogers, 538 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied).

Courts: Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Products Liability & Personal Injury, Labor & Employment

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