Second Court of Appeals

Week of February 9, 2015 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of February 9, 2015

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Duncan v. First Tex. Homes, No. 02-12-00464-CV (Feb. 12, 2015) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker, J.).

Held: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of employer on employee’s premises liability claim because there were genuine issues of material fact as to employer’s knowledge of the condition on the premises that caused employee’s injury, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and whether the employer’s failure to use reasonable care proximately caused the employee’s injuries.

BBVA Compass Inv. Solutions, Inc. v. Brooks, No. 02-13-00047-CV (Feb. 12, 2015) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot & Walker, JJ.)

Held: The trial court erred by denying appellants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Appellees’ tort and DTPA claims were so interwoven with the breach-of-contract claim that the arbitration clause encompassed them as well. Appellees failed to show that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because of excessive arbitration costs and failed to show that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable at the time it was formed.

Childress Eng’g Servs. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 02-14-00332-CV (Feb. 12, 2015) (Dixon W. Holman (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment), joined by Walker & Meier, JJ.)

Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss under civil practice and remedies code section 150.002 because appellee’s indemnity claim stemmed from the parties’ contract, the trial court could determine the indemnity clause’s enforceability as a question of law without requiring recourse to an expert’s report, and the alleged error resulting in the breach-of-contract claim was appellant’s failure to comply with the indemnity clause, not a specific act, error, or omission in its provision of engineering services.