Fieldturf USA, Inc. and Altech, Inc. v. Pleasant Grove Independent School District, 642 S.W.3d 829

Background

Pleasant Grove ISD hired Altech to build a stadium; ISD separately selected FieldTurf’s Prestige XM-60 system, which came with an 8-year limited warranty (repair/replace exclusive; disclaimers of other warranties).
Field showed accelerated fiber wear and alleged G‑Max (shock-absorption) failures beginning in 2014–15; FieldTurf inspected, recommended a "LayMor Scrape," ISD demanded replacement, then replaced the field in 2016 and sued FieldTurf and Altech for breach of contract/warranty (and fraud against FieldTurf).
ISD submitted a March 3, 2016 G‑Max report (Bounce Diagnostics) in response to Altech’s summary‑judgment motion on the G‑Max warranty claim; Altech objected to the report’s authenticity and calibration.
At the summary‑judgment hearing the trial judge orally stated he would sustain Altech’s objection and granted Altech summary judgment; a written judgment granting summary judgment was later signed but did not reference the G‑Max objection.
The court of appeals reversed in part, ruling the oral ruling was insufficient to strike the G‑Max report (holding a written order was required) and remanded remaining claims against FieldTurf for a new trial; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held an on‑the‑record, unequivocal oral ruling sustaining an objection to summary‑judgment evidence preserves error (no written order required), reversed the court of appeals insofar as it reinstated the G‑Max report, reinstated Altech’s summary judgment, and remanded to the court of appeals to address issues it did not reach.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an on‑the‑record oral ruling sustaining an objection to summary‑judgment evidence suffices to exclude the evidence when no written order is entered	ISD: Allowing courts to rely on the reporter’s record would upend summary‑judgment procedure; written order should be required	Altech/FieldTurf: An unequivocal oral ruling on the record preserves error under Rule 33.1; written order not required	Held: An explicit, on‑the‑record oral ruling sustaining an objection qualifies as a ruling for preservation; the G‑Max report was excluded.
Whether the Bounce Diagnostics G‑Max report created a genuine fact issue on Altech’s G‑Max warranty	ISD: The G‑Max report shows G‑Max >140 and thus creates a fact issue precluding SJ	Altech: The report was unauthenticated and objection was sustained; cannot be considered	Held: Because the trial court sustained the objection on the record, the report was excluded and could not create a fact issue; SJ for Altech stands.
Whether other evidence (Kunkel’s expert report) independently created a fact issue on the G‑Max warranty	ISD: Kunkel’s report—citing G‑Max exceedance and standards—supports fact issue independent of the G‑Max report	Altech: Kunkel’s report does not supply specific ASTM F355 results and is speculative	Held: Kunkel’s report was too general and did not reasonably show G‑Max >140 as measured under ASTM F355; it could not defeat SJ.
Whether the court of appeals properly remanded the FieldTurf claims for new trial without addressing potential rendition issues for FieldTurf	ISD: Trial errors (including charge on damages) justify remand irrespective of other appellate issues	FieldTurf/Altech: Court of appeals should have decided any issues warranting rendition before remanding in interest of justice	Held: Remand was improper without explanation; appellate court must first address issues that would require rendition before ordering a remand.

Key Cases Cited

Seim v. Allstate Tex. Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2018) (appellate‑preservation rule: timely objection plus trial‑court ruling required; implication rule explained)
Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003) (appellate courts should address rendition issues before ordering remand)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Frederick, 621 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. 1981) (remand may be appropriate when trial court error prevented full presentation of evidence)
Carowest Land, Ltd. v. City of New Braunfels, 615 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. 2020) (circumstances warranting remand in the interest of justice described)
Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (remand where court’s opinion substantially clarifies law)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (movant must show no genuine issue of material fact to obtain summary judgment)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (summary‑judgment review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (oral testimony generally not permitted at summary‑judgment hearings; hearings often unnecessary to appellate record)
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (Rule 166a(c) requires written motions/answers; reasons and objections must be before the trial judge in writing)
In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (discussing when an order may implicitly rule on objections)
Jackson v. Ewton, 411 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. 1967) (remand must be supported by the record)
Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (court may deny transcription of summary‑judgment hearing; reporter’s record generally unnecessary)
In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (appellate courts should not decide issues not raised in the court of appeals)