This morning, the Texas Supreme Court issued one opinion on a motion for rehearing. The Court also granted two petitions for review and set one mandamus petition for argument.
The Court denied rehearing but issued a corrected opinion in No. 11-0213, Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp. Our coverage of the initial opinion is here. In the corrected opinion, the Court made two changes. In footnote 7, the Court replaced the phrase "operating expenses" with "gross earnings." And on page 27, the Court edited one sentence as follows: "It is undisputed that the present case requires determination of the parties’ possessory rights to the property, and does not involve construction of a written agreement."
The Court will hear argument in the following cases:
No. 13-0080, RSUI Indemnity Co. v. The Lynd Co. - This is an insurance coverage case related to losses to several commercial properties in Hurricane Rita. The primary issue is how the policy limits of an excess property insurance policy should be calculated. The policy covers multiple properties, and contains a "Scheduled Limit of Liability" endorsement. The petitioner insurance company contends that this endorsement makes that policy a scheduled policy, rather than a blanket policy. Under that interpretation, the insurance company argues, the loss to each property is calculated independently and then compared to the policy limits for that property in the schedule. The respondent property owner argues that the label (scheduled or blanket) is irrelevant and that the language of the policy requires all losses from a single occurrence to be calculated using the same method. Then, the total loss should be compared to the aggregate policy limits for the properties at issue, and the insurer should pay whichever is less. The date for argument has not yet been set.
No. 13-0749, In re A.B. and H.B., Children - In this parental-rights termination case, the issue is whether the en banc court of appeals properly conducted a factual-sufficiency analysis. The court of appeals panel found that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the judgment that the father's parental rights should be terminated. The en banc court reversed and reinstated the judgment of termination. The father contends that the en banc court did not properly perform the factual-sufficiency review because the en banc opinion does not address some of the evidence on which the panel relied to reverse the judgment. Oral argument has been set for April 22.
No. 13-0537, In re State Board for Educator Certification - The issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the State Board to supersede the trial court's judgment pending appeal. The board voted to revoke the real party in interest's educator certificate, and the real party in interest sought judicial review. The district court reversed the board's determination, and refused to permit the board to supersede that judgment pending appeal. No date for oral argument has been set.
Access the complete order list here.
-- Rich Phillips, Thompson & Knight