596 S.W.3d 781
Tex.2020Background
- Covarrubias injured his finger when a wind gust closed the door of a construction trailer owned by Mobile Mini but leased to Nolana; the trailer was under the contractor Anar’s control when injury occurred.
- Nineteen days before limitations expired, Covarrubias sued Anar and Mobile Mini and served requests for disclosure; Mobile Mini’s answers and Rule 194 disclosure responses were due after limitations expired.
- Mobile Mini timely served disclosures (per the Rules) identifying Nolana as a potentially responsible third party; Covarrubias soon amended to add Nolana as a defendant.
- Mobile Mini filed a motion to designate Nolana as a responsible third party more than 60 days before trial; no party initially opposed, but the motion remained undecided while litigation proceeded.
- The trial court later dismissed Covarrubias’s claims against Nolana as time-barred and granted summary judgment to Nolana; after that dismissal, the trial court denied Mobile Mini’s motion to designate Nolana and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief.
- The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus, holding the trial court abused discretion in denying the designation and that mandamus was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant’s Rule 194 disclosure served after the statute of limitations expired (but on the Rule’s due date) satisfies §33.004(d)’s “timely disclose” requirement | Covarrubias: disclosure after limitations is untimely even if served by the Rule’s due date because defendant could have disclosed earlier | Mobile Mini: disclosure was timely because it complied with the Rules’ deadline and §33.004(d) requires only timely disclosure under the Rules | Court held the Rule-194 disclosure was timely for §33.004(d) purposes when served by the Rules’ deadline, even though after limitations expired |
| Timeliness of the motion to designate under §33.004(a) (60 days before trial) | Implicitly argued timing defects or other grounds to deny | Mobile Mini: motion filed well before the 60-day pretrial cutoff (626 days before first trial setting) | Court held Mobile Mini’s motion was timely under §33.004(a) |
| Whether a person already named or later dismissed (time-barred) can be designated as a responsible third party | Covarrubias: Nolana couldn’t be a responsible third party because it was a named party or later substantively dismissed | Mobile Mini: designation is about apportioned responsibility, not liability or joinder; dismissal on limitations does not preclude designation | Court held prior naming or dismissal on limitations grounds does not bar designation; responsibility is distinct from liability |
| Availability of mandamus and preservation/delay defenses | Covarrubias/Nolana: Mobile Mini failed to preserve arguments and delayed seeking mandamus | Mobile Mini: objections were addressed and three-month delay in seeking mandamus did not preclude relief; appellate remedy inadequate | Court held mandamus appropriate under In re Coppola; preservation and delay did not bar relief in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017) (mandamus appropriate to correct erroneous denial of a timely Chapter 33 designation)
- In re Dawson, 550 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2018) (denial of designation proper where defendant failed to timely and adequately disclose responsible third party before limitations expired)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (discussed interplay of limitations and responsible-third-party joinder; statutes of limitations prevail over procedural attempts to resurrect time-barred claims)
- Galbraith Eng’g Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha, 290 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. 2009) (Chapter 33 allows designation even if the third party has a defense or cannot be joined; responsibility distinct from liability)
- Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 841 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. 1992) (statutes of limitations are procedural, not substantive)
- JCW Elecs., Inc. v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. 2008) (some warranty claims may give rise to tort damages for Chapter 33 purposes)