Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Alfred Martinez was injured by an allegedly defective handle on a garbage dumpster owned by his employer, USA Waste of Texas. The dumpster was being leased by and was on the premises of Wilson Plaza Associates. USA Waste bought the dumpster from Allied Waste Systems, who bought it from Laidlaw Waste Systems. Martinez sued Wilson Plaza and Allied Waste Systems for negligence and strict liability. Wilson Plaza and Allied both filed motions for summary judgment. Martinez’s workers’ compensation provider, Reliance National Insurance Co., filed a plea in intervention to be reimbursed out of any recovery Martinez might get. At this point, Martinez amended his petition to add claims against Allied regarding its relationship with Laidlaw. Specifically, Martinez asserted that Allied was liable for the tortious acts of Laidlaw as its successor and that Laidlaw’s name change to Allied was merely a sham to perpetrate a fraud, such that Allied should be liable as the alter ego of Laidlaw. The trial court granted Wilson Plaza’s summary judgment motion and severed those claims. The trial court then entered a take-nothing judgment against Allied, granting its original motion for summary judgment. This court originally reversed and remanded, then Allied filed for rehearing. HOLDING:Rehearing granted; opinion reversed and remanded. In response to Allied’s appeal, Martinez claims that this court does not have appellate jurisdiction, as the trial court’s summary judgment order did not dispose of all parties and claims, making it interlocutory. The claims against Reliance National and the claims of alter ego against Allied were not addressed by Allied’s motion for summary judgment. The court finds the once Martinez’s claim was dismissed, Reliance National had no further claim to pursue. The fact that the trial court rendered judgment on more claims than were actually requested by Allied, as the order incorporated Martinez’s new successor liability and alter ego claims into the judgment, does not detract from the finality of the judgment. Nonetheless, the court finds that because the trial court did not rule on Martinez’s special exceptions to Allied’s motion for summary judgment, the ruling was not final as to all parties and claims. Martinez’s special exceptions were based on his uncertainty over his burden of proof, as Allied’s motion was ambiguous as to whether it was intended to be a traditional or no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court did not grant Martinez’s special exceptions, he was forced to respond to the vague motion for summary judgment without fair notice of his burdens. He did not know which standard was to be used for each claim, and therefore he was unable to present an adequate defense of the claims in the summary judgment motion, as he could not anticipate in advance the burden of proof he would be facing. OPINION:Garza, J.; Valdez, C.J., Rodriguez and Garza, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.