Ali Mustafa and Ali Reza Lahijani v. Americo Energy Resources, LLC
14-20-00202-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 12, 2022Background
- Appellants (landowners) owned property they had not inspected since 2010 until a 2016 visit; defendants (Americo) cleaned tanks and removed products in February 2015.
- On a March 2016 visit appellants observed a white area and suspected a leaking tank; they filed suit October 13, 2017 and invoked the discovery rule.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellee on limitations grounds; the court of appeals majority affirmed.
- Justice Hassan issued a dissent arguing the majority misapplied discovery-rule jurisprudence and relied improperly on ExxonMobil.
- The dissent contends appellee failed to carry its summary-judgment burden to negate the discovery rule and also failed to secure required findings to support a statute-of-limitations defense (thus waiving it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule tolled accrual of appellants’ claims | Appellants: discovery rule applies because they did not have reason to suspect injury and only discovered signs in Mar 2016 | Americo: injury was objectively discoverable by Feb 27, 2015 (visible discoloration), so limitations bar applies | Majority: injury was discoverable Feb 27, 2015 and suit filed >2 years later; discovery rule does not save claim (affirmed). Dissent: genuine fact issue remains whether reasonable diligence would have discovered injury earlier. |
| Burden on summary judgment to negate discovery rule | Appellants: appellee must conclusively negate discovery or show accrual date as a matter of law | Americo: established accrual no later than Feb 2015 and summary judgment appropriate | Court: finds for defendant (majority). Dissent: appellee did not prove as a matter of law when appellants should have discovered injury; reasonable-diligence is typically a fact question. |
| Precedential effect of ExxonMobil v. Lazy R Ranch | Appellants: ExxonMobil is distinguishable because its owners lived on the property and observed spills | Americo: relies on ExxonMobil to show contamination was discoverable | Court (majority): applies ExxonMobil reasoning. Dissent: ExxonMobil is factually distinguishable and does not impose a duty to inspect remote property within a specified time. |
| Waiver and necessity of findings to support limitations defense | Appellants: appellee did not secure findings of fact on limitations | Americo: proceeded on summary judgment without requested findings | Dissent: appellee waived limitations defense by not obtaining findings; without findings summary-judgment affirmation is improper. Majority affirmed despite absence of findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- ExxonMobil Corp. v. Lazy R Ranch, LP, 511 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2017) (analyzed discoverability where owners lived on and frequently inspected the property)
- Regency Field Servs., LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. 2021) (when claim accrues under the discovery rule)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko, 544 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. 2018) (defendant bears burden at summary judgment to negate application of the discovery rule)
- Velocity Databank, Inc. v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 456 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (defendant must prove accrual date and that no fact issue exists about discovery)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (standards for proving limitations as a matter of law)
- Bayou Bend Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Manhattan Constr. Co., 866 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (discusses duty to inquire and knowledge-equivalency under the discovery rule)
- Archer v. Tregellas, 566 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. 2018) (defines inherently undiscoverable injuries and limits mandatory-search expectations)
- Barras v. Barras, 396 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) (party must secure findings to sustain a limitations plea or risk waiver)