X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:State Farm Lloyds brought a subrogation suit against the city of Arlington to recover monies it paid to an insured homeowner whose home was damaged by a sewage backup. The trial court awarded damages to State Farm, and the court of appeals affirmed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court of appeals held that the city waived its issues by inadequate briefing, because it failed to include specific citations to the record. Because the city’s brief met the requirements laid out in Weaver v. Southwest Nat’l Bank, 813 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. 1991), the court concludes that the city did not waive its issues by failing to restate the record references in its argument and authorities section. Nor does the court agree that the city’s citations to the “entire record” waived its no-evidence issues. If the city’s no-evidence argument had been based on the strength of the evidence � for example, if the city argued that the evidence was “so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion” � then the city could, and should, detail the relevant parts of the record. In this case, however, the city was not arguing about the strength of the evidence, but was instead arguing that there was a complete absence of evidence on critical elements of State Farm’s claims. When a complete absence of evidence is alleged, the reviewing court must include the entire record within its scope of review. Takings liability may arise when the governmental entity “(1) knows that a specific act is causing identifiable harm; or (2) knows that the specific property damage is substantially certain to result from an authorized government action.” City of Dallas v. Jennings, ___S.W.3d___, (Tex. 2004). In this case, there was no evidence the city possessed such knowledge. In Jennings, the court noted that “[a] city is immune from liability for its governmental actions unless that immunity is waived,” and that “[o]peration of a sewer system is a governmental function.” The court therefore concluded that “the City will not be liable for damage resulting from its operation of the sewer system without a clear waiver of governmental immunity.” The court applies the same standard here, and notes that State Farm has not pointed to any applicable waiver of immunity. The court holds that the city of Arlington retained immunity from the nuisance claim. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.