The Texas Supreme Court ended its week with a quiet (although quite long) weekly order list. No opinions were issued, and no cases were accepted for argument.

With today’s order list, the Texas Supreme Court issued four sets of opinions and also granted review in four cases to be heard this fall.

One interesting decision was in Tanner v. Nationwide Mutual, No. 07-0760, a case about whether insurance covers damage caused to bystanders by a person fleeing police in a high-speed chase. Voting 8-1, the Court sided against the insurer, explaining (among other reasons) that the evidence here showed that the person fleeing police at least tried to apply his brakes before impact so did not collide with the victims intentionally. Justice Willett wrote the majority opinion. Justice Brister wrote a dissent, arguing that the Court should have concluded that this driver ought to have known the likely results of fleeing the police, thus freeing his insurer from their duty to third parties.

One of the petitions granted this morning was State v. $281,420 in US Currency, No. 08-0465 (DB), in which the Texas Supreme Court had requested the views of the Solicitor General in a formal CVSG last fall. So, that’s now 1-for-1 on grants when that happens.

I’m blogging on a phone this morning that lacks a physical keyboard or cut-and-paste, so I’ll add more later.

There is no regular weekly order list today. But, if you’re missing the Friday morning routine, you can always read yesterday’s longer-than-usual order list disposing of six cases.

The Texas Supreme Court issued opinions in four cases today, including the long-discussed Entergy Gulf States case. (You may need to refresh your memory of roman numerals to follow that judgment.)

The Court did not grant any new petitions for review or other extraordinary motions in this week’s orders.

Entergy: Same Judgment, Divergent Opinions

In Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, No. 05-0272 (DB), the Court voted 6-3 to reverse and render judgment, the same ultimate disposition the Court reached in 2007. This blog covered some of the rehearing papers and the legislative response, including some legislators’ amicus filings.

The new opinion is far more fragmented. The original opinion was a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Willett.

The new opinion, authored by Justice Green, is described this way:

Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice Brister joined, and in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII and IX of which Justice Hecht joined, and in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and IX of which Justice Johnson joined, and in Parts I, II, III, VI, VII, and IX of which Justice Willett joined.

So, it looks like Part VII got five votes (but not that of Justice Hecht, who wrote a concurrence explaining his disagreement about statutory construction). And it looks like Part VIII (the broadest public-policy section) actually did not get five votes.

To that, separate concurrences were also filed by Justice Hecht and by Justice Willett.

Justice O’Neill wrote a dissent that was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Medina.

A separate post about this case is coming soon after I judge some moot court rounds at the law school this afternoon There is much to mine in this case about statutory construction and the relationship between the Legislature and the courts.

Workers Compensation for General Contractors

In HCBeck, Ltd. v. Charles Rice, No. 06-0418, (DB) the Court faced the question how the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s shield against lawsuits applies to general contractors who “provide” workers compensation insurance to subcontractors and their employees.

Here, there was a contract that “require[d] only that the subcontractor enroll in the site owner’s workers’ compensation insurance plan.” The court of appeals held that was not enough.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding, “A general workplace insurance plan that binds a general contractor to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its subcontractors and its subcontractors’ employees achieves the Legislature’s objective to ensure that the subcontractors’ employees receive the benefit of workers’ compensation insurance.”

Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, and Justice Brister joined, and in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VII of which Justice Willett joined.

Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined. (Justice O’Neill did not sit.)

Integrity of the Jury Process May Permit Discovery in Later Cases: Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo

It’s a rare case in which failure to permit discovery is deemed harmful enough error to reverse a judgment.

In Ford Motor Co. v. Ezequiel Castillo, No. 06‑0875 (DB), the Texas Supreme Court faced a situation in which a defendant sought discovery into the jury deliberation process to argue a settlement had been procured by fraud. The trial court denied the discovery.

The Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed and remanded to the trial court to permit discovery. Justice Johnson wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion, with which Justice Medina joined.

Relocation Damages Not Generally Available for Takings Cases

In Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Harris County Toll Road Authority, No. 06-0933 (DB), a company sought relocation expenses when it was forced to move by new road construction.

The Chief Justice wrote for a unanimous Court. This sums it up:

A telephone company that was forced to relocate its facilities due to road construction demanded reimbursement from the county and its toll road authority. Neither our statutes nor our constitution, however, authorize the relief sought. Because the utility has no vested property right to relocation of its facilities at county expense, and because the Legislature has not waived the governmental entities’ immunity from suit, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.

The Texas Supreme Court handed down opinions in six cases in this morning’s order list and — in perfect balance — selected six new cases to be heard at oral argument later this spring.

Today’s Decisions

Today I’m letting the Court write the summaries for me…

• Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., No. 05‑0729 and the companion case Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., No. 05‑1076. Justice Wainwright wrote for the Court. Justice O’Neill did not sit on these cases.

  “In this oil and gas dispute, we determine whether section 85.321 of the Texas Natural Resources Code allows a subsequent mineral lessee to maintain a cause of action against a prior lessee for damages to the subsequent lessee’s interest. We hold that section 85.321 creates a private cause of action that does not extend to subsequent lessees. Because the plaintiff in this case owned no interest in the mineral leases when the prior lessee allegedly damaged the interest, the plaintiff lacks standing to assert a cause of action under section 85.321.”

• Prodigy Communications Corp. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Ins. Co., No. 06‑0598. The Chief Justice wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices O’Neill, Wainwright, Brister, Medina, and Green. Justice Wainwright also wrote a separate concurring opinion expressing his acquiescence in today’s result although he had originally dissented in PAJ, the key case. Three Justices dissented, with the dissenting opinion written by Justice Johnson joined by Justice Hecht and Justice Willett.

  “Today, we decide whether PAJ’s notice-prejudice rule applies to a claims-made policy when the notice provision requires that the insured, ‘as a condition precedent’ to its rights under the policy, give notice of a claim to its insurer ‘as soon as practicable . . ., but in no event later than ninety (90) days after the expiration of the Policy Period or Discovery Period.’ The parties dispute whether notice of the claim was given ‘as soon as practicable’ but agree that the insured gave notice within the ninety-day cutoff period. The insurer also admits that it was not prejudiced by the delayed notice.”

  “For the reasons explained below, we conclude that “notice as soon as practicable” was not an essential part of the bargained-for exchange under the claims-made policy at issue here. Following PAJ, we hold that, in the absence of prejudice to the insurer, the insured’s alleged failure to comply with the provision does not defeat coverage.”

• Financial Industries Corp. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07‑1059. The Court was answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit. The opinion was authored by the Chief Justice.

  “[W]e answer the following question: ‘Must an insurer show prejudice to deny payment on a claims-made policy, when the denial is based upon the insured’s breach of the policy’s prompt-notice provision, but the notice is nevertheless given within the policy’s coverage period?'”

  “For the reasons stated above and explained more fully in Prodigy Communications Corp. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance Co., … we answer the certified question in the affirmative…”

• Progressive County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Regan Kelley, No. 08‑0073 (per curiam).

  “In this case, we consider whether two documents issued by an insurance company constitute two separate insurance policies or a single policy. We hold that this is a fact question and remand to the trial court.”

• Emmanuel Ginn, et al. v. Jeff Forester, et al., No. 08‑0163 (per curiam)

  “A restricted appeal requires error that is apparent on the face of the record; error that is merely inferred will not suffice. In this case, the clerk’s supplemental record contains a notation that the clerk’s office was unable to locate documents indicating notice was sent … Because the clerk has no affirmative duty to record the giving of notice, however, a statement that the record reflects none cannot establish error on the face of the record. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment dismissing the case.”

New Cases Selected for Oral Argument

The Court has not yet chosen the date or time for these arguments.

• Regal Finance co., v. Tex Star Motors, Inc., No. 08‑0148, out of the Fourteenth Court (DB)

• Tangie Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center, No. 08‑0169, out of the First Court (DB)

• Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd. v. Emmalene Rankin, No. 08‑0316 (DB)

• NAFTA Traders, Inc. v. Margaret A. Quinn, No. 08‑0613 (DB)

• In re Scoggins Construction Co., No. 08‑0544 (DB)

• In re Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc., No. 08‑0660 (DB)

Other Items of Note

Justice Brister noted his dissent to the Court’s denial of review in State of Texas v. $130,510.00 in Lawful Currency, No. 08-0883 (DB).

I wrote a few weeks back about how one of the bills pending in the Legislature to “open up” the Court’s vote process may be unnecessary or even counterproductive when the Justices already have this ability to note their views for the public record.

In today’s quiet weekly order list, the Texas Supreme Court denied (or struck) just a handful of petitions. No opinions were issued, and no cases were set for oral argument.

The Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or grant any new petitions for review with this week’s order list. The Court did grant its third stay of the week in a petition for mandamus. (The prior two.)

The Texas Supreme Court released opinions in one merits decision with today’s order list. The remainder of the order list contained routine denials of review.

Today’s decision is in Benny P. Phillips, M.D. v. Dale Bramlett, No. 07-052, a case about the interaction between two parts of Article 4590i, the medical-liability cap that preceded the 2003 reform statute — its overall liability cap and an exception to that cap where the common-law Stowers doctrine applies.

The Court was divided 5-4 over the judgment. I’ll post a case summary soon.

For those who want to read ahead, the majority opinion was written by Justice Medina, joined by Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett. A dissenting opinion was written by Justice O’Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, and Justice Green.