1. John Masek Corp. v. Davis, 848 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied).

We represented Marvin Davis, Chairman of Davis Oil Company. Our firm assisted in the trial and handled the appeal. We convinced the trial court to enter a judgment n.o.v., disregarding the multi-million dollar jury verdict. The issues on appeal included claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and the measure of damages in a loss profits case. The judgment was affirmed.

2. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Buckingham Gate, Ltd., 993 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied).

We began representing Lexington after a $20+ million verdict was returned against the company on theories of Insurance Code violations and misrepresentation. The court granted our post-verdict motion in part and rendered a judgment of $2 million against Lexington. We handled the appeal, which ruled that the plaintiffs take nothing against Lexington. The Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents' petition for review.

3. AON Properties, Inc. v. Riveraine Corporation, No. 14-96-229-CV (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 14, 1999, pet. denied) (not designated for publication), 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 199.

We represented the main defendant, AON Properties, a Canadian-owned real estate concern. We were hired in the case after the verdict but before judgment was entered. We convinced the trial court to disregard most of the jury's findings and reduce the $4 million verdict to a $200,000 judgment. The issues on appeal included breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and fraud. The court of appeals ruled in favor of our clients, finding no liability on any theory.

4. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P. v. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 951 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1997).

We represented J.D. Weatherly on behalf of a class of persons who were defrauded by a stock investment. We prevailed in the court of appeals on the issue of class certification. We argued the case in the Texas Supreme Court and obtained a favorable decision from that Court.

5. Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 77 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. 2002).

This case dealt with whether an excess insurer violated any duty to avoid unreasonable delays in settlement. The Supreme Court analyzed both common law and statutory duties and determined that because no definitive offer was made to settle the claims within the policy limits, National Union had not violated any duty. The Court interpreted the statutory unfair claims settlement provisions to coincide with common law Stowers claims, thus avoiding potentially inconsistent duties.

6. Schneider National Trucking v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 280 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2002).

We obtained a reversal of a federal district court decision that had misinterpreted a common provision in insurance policies dealing with when an excess carrier's duty to defend begins.

7. In re Posadas USA, Inc., BIA Acquisition, Ltd., and Jonathan Hege, 100 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding).

We sought and obtained a mandamus relief in the San Antonio court of appeals to require a trial court to permit a lawyer to withdraw and to refrain from proceeding to trial.

8. In Re: American Home Assurance Company, 88 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding).

The Texarkana Court held that the trial court's discovery rulings against our client were an abuse of discretion. The case has a number of significant rulings, and is the first published opinion in Texas to hold that an insurance company's "reserves" information, essentially an internal evaluation of the case, is not discoverable.

9. Kings Park Apartments v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 101 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

This contentious litigation lasted for over eleven years and resulted in a $2.5 million bad faith judgment against our client. In 2003, the First Court of Appeals in Houston reversed and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing on their claims. The Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents' petition for review.

10. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Aguilera-Sanchez, No. 04-02-458-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4846 (Tex. App. - San Antonio June 11, 2003, pet. denied.).

Aguilera sued Wal-Mart for malicious prosecution in a mistaken identity case. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury's verdict for $20 million. We handled the appeal, which resulted in a reversal and rendition of a take-nothing judgment. Here is a link to the decision. In April 2004, the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for review.

11. Texas Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Quach, 95 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

We represented Texas Real Estate Holdings in an appeal of a $1.1 million judgment rendered against the company in a premises liability case. The First Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take nothing judgment. The Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents' petition for review.

12. Qwest Communications International Inc., v. AT&T Corp., 114 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. App. - Austin June 12, 2003, pet. filed).

We represented Qwest Communications on appeal and convinced the Austin Court of Appeals to eliminate an award of contract damages of over $300,000. The decision, dated June 12, 2003, can be found at this link. The firm pursued a petition for review in the Supreme Court to challenge a finding of punitive damages.  The Supreme Court granted the petition and eliminated the punitive damage award in June, 2005.

A videotape of the argument and the critique by a panel of three appellate lawyers is available. If you would like a copy of the tape, please Contact Us or preview the argument online by clicking on the link below:

Tom Wright Argument

13. Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Dresser-Rand Company, 123 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist] 2003, pet. filed).

We represented Dresser-Rand Company in a challenge to a judgment for over three million dollars involving damage to a compressor at a chemical plant. The Court ruled in our client's favor. The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral argument on our opponent’s petition for review on November 29, 2005.

14. American Home Assurance Co. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 121 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App. - Eastland 2003, pet. filed).

We represented American Home Assurance in an appeal from a judgment finding that the use of insurance company staff counsel to defend their insureds in claims brought by third parties was the unauthorized practice of law. The Court fully exonerated our clients and upheld the long-standing Texas rule permitting defense of insureds by staff counsel. The Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in September on the petition filed by the  UPL committee. 

15. The Chair King, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc., No. 14-00-00711-CV, (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist] May 7, 2004). The court sustained our client's argument that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act permits private causes of action to be filed in Texas without the state's having to pass so-called "enabling" legislation. The Supreme Court granted petitions for review and heard argument earlier this year.

16. City of Galveston and Flagship Hotel Ltd v. Garza, NO. 10-01-031-CV, 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 7255 (Tex. App. - Waco Aug. 20, 2003, pet. denied). The court ruled in favor of our clients and reversed a $10 million judgment for the deaths of two adults who drove off the pier at the Flagship Hotel into the Gulf of Mexico. In February 2004, the Texas Supreme Court denied our opponents' petition for review.

17. Vasquez v. Hyundai Motor Co., 119 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2003). Harvey Brown filed an amicus brief in this case concerning whether the trial court should permit counsel to ask a venire panel whether they would hold it against the plaintiffs if the plaintiff’s child was not wearing a seat belt.

“Results obtained depend on the facts of each case.”