Second Court of Appeals | Case December

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 22, 2010

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.

Smith v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co., No. 02-08-00198-CV (Feb. 25, 2010) (Livingston, J., joined by McCoy and Meier, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by granting a no-evidence summary judgment for Appellee in this asbestos exposure case because, under controlling supreme court authority in Borg-Warner v. Flores, Appellants did not bring forward legally sufficient evidence that Dorman Smith’s exposure to the chrysotile asbestos in Appellee’s joint compound product exceeded a minimum threshold above which a person has an elevated risk of developing mesothelioma.

Nat’l City Mortgage Co. v. Adams, No. 02-08-00352-CV (Feb. 25, 2010) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston, J.). [Note: This Opinion withdrawn March 25, 2010.]: Held: Although Appellant appeals from a JNOV, Appellant’s sole issue is one determined as a matter of law; thus, the JNOV standard is inapplicable. The agreement between Appellant and Appellee is one of indemnity and, therefore, does not obligate Appellee to pay Appellant its attorneys’ fees incurred in defending itself against Appellee and in prosecuting its counterclaim against Appellee.

Ghazali v. Brown, No. 02-09-00191-CV (Feb. 25, 2010) (Meier, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss Appellee’s claim for failing to provide an expert report as required by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. Under the specific facts presented, Appellee’s claim relating to her laser hair removal does not constitute a health care liability claim.