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

By Levinger| October 27th, 2016|Comments Off

Lender Liability Suit Revived After Dismissal by Summary Judgment

July 7, 2016 in Case Summaries

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of a lender liability lawsuit brought by Levinger PC clients David Bagwell and The Bagwell Trust against BBVA Compass and its loan officer. Bagwell alleged that the defendants had defrauded him by representing that it would renew and not sell three promissory notes securing valuable real estate, when in fact it had secretly negotiated to sell the notes to a competitor of Bagwell. The defendants raised five defenses statute of frauds, res judicata, collateral estoppel, estoppel by contract, and the economic loss rule and the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying which defense supported its ruling. The Dallas Court of Appeals concluded that none of these defenses warranted the grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Bagwell v. BBVA Compass, No. 05-14-01579-CV, 2016 WL 3660403 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

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

By Levinger| July 7th, 2016|Comments Off

Court of Appeals Tosses Developer’s $9 Million Inverse Condemnation Award Against City of McKinney

May 3, 2016 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented the City of McKinney in its appeal of a judgment of over $9,000,000 stemming from a developer’s claim that the City had committed an “inverse condemnation” by violating a restriction in a deed. In its 2009 lawsuit, Eldorado Land Company contended that the City’s construction of a library on a portion of a 32 acre tract that Eldorado had conveyed to the City for use as a community park violated the deed restriction, which provided that the property could be used only as a “park and recreational facility.” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of El Dorado on the liability issue, and a jury assessed damages of over $7,500,000 (exclusive of interest), representing the difference in the property’s value with and without its deed and zoning restrictions. In reversing the summary judgment on liability and rendering a take-nothing in favor of the City, the Court of Appeals held that the City’s community library fit squarely within the “plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning” of a park and recreational facility, and thus did not violate the restriction in the deed. City of McKinney v. Eldorado Land Co., LP, No. 05-15-00067-CV, 2016 WL 2349371 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 3, 2016, pet. denied).

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

By Levinger| May 3rd, 2016|Comments Off

Dispute Over Sale of Gold Bars Ends With Fifth Circuit Affirmance of Jury Verdict Favoring Dillon Gage

February 29, 2016 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented Dillon Gage Metals, a large wholesaler of rare coins and bullion, in its long-running dispute with the Gagosian Gallery, a prominent New York art gallery, over the acquisition of 100 bars of gold. In 2009, the Gallery paid $3 million to Stanford Coins & Bullion, a business owned by the now-disgraced financier Allen Stanford, to acquire the gold for a major art installation. SCB, in turn, ordered the gold from Dillon Gage. Before the transaction could be completed, however, SCB was placed into federal receivership, and when the Gallery did not receive the gold, it sued Dillon Gage on the theory that the Gallery was a third-party beneficiary of the sales contract between SCB and Dillon Gage. After a multi-day trial, a jury found that the Gallery was not a third-party beneficiary of the SCB-Dillon Gage contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Dillon Gage, agreeing with Levinger’s arguments that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the jury charge accurately expressed Texas law on third-party beneficiary status. Pre-War Art, Inc. v. Stanford Coins and Bullion, Inc., No. 1510033, 2016 WL 791042 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016).

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| February 29th, 2016|Comments Off

Fifth Circuit Revives Antitrust Suit Against Monopolistic Broker of Veterinary Insurance

September 23, 2015 in Case Summaries

In a 2-1 opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment dismissal of an antitrust suit brought by Levinger PC client Sanger Insurance Agency against HUB International, an insurance broker that sells professional liability and other types of insurance products to veterinarians across the country. Although the Court held that HUB’s anti-competitive conduct was exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it revived Sanger’s claims under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act and various common law theories and remanded them for trial. Over the dissent of Judge Edith Jones, Judges Gregg Costa and Jerry Smith held that Sanger had established that it was sufficiently prepared to enter the market for selling veterinary insurance, and thus reversed the district court’s determination that Sanger lacked standing to challenge HUB’s conduct. Sanger Insurance Co. v. HUB Int’l, Ltd., 802 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2015)

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| September 23rd, 2015|Comments Off