646 S.W.3d 805
Tex.2022Background
- In 2015 James Curry was injured while loading a trailer at Eaton Corporation’s dock; Eaton had authorized YRC Freight to move the trailer. Curry recovered workers’ compensation benefits.
- Curry later sued YRC and its driver for negligence; YRC identified Eaton as a potential responsible third party in discovery and moved to designate Eaton on Jan 5, 2021.
- At the time of the motion, the operative trial setting was March 8, 2021 (62 days later).
- The trial court denied YRC’s motion, finding it untimely, barred by the statute of limitations as to Eaton, and insufficiently pleaded; the court of appeals denied mandamus relief.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus, holding the motion was timely under In re Coppola, §33.004(d) did not bar designation because the Labor Code made the employer immune via the exclusive remedy, and YRC’s motion satisfied Rule 47(a) (or at least required an opportunity to replead).
Issues
| Issue | Curry's Argument | YRC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.004(a) | Motion was untimely because it was filed less than 60 days before the original trial setting | Timely because measured against the trial date in effect when the motion was filed (Coppola) | Motion was timely (filed 62 days before operative trial date) |
| Effect of limitations under §33.004(d) on designating Eaton | Designation barred because statute of limitations on tort claims against Eaton had expired | No applicable limitations period: employer cannot be sued on tort claim because Labor Code makes workers’ comp the exclusive remedy | §33.004(d) did not bar designation; limitations period did not apply because cause of action against employer was eliminated by exclusive remedy statute |
| Pleading sufficiency under §33.004(g) and Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(a) | Motion failed to plead sufficient facts tying Eaton to Curry’s injury | Motion gave fair notice of Eaton’s duty, breach, and causation; if deficient, court must allow repleading | Motion satisfied Rule 47(a); trial court abused discretion in denying without permitting repleading |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy / appropriateness of mandamus | Denial can be reviewed on appeal | Mandamus appropriate because denial defeats right to jury apportionment and may force retrial | Mandamus relief proper; trial court ordered to grant the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017) (measuring the 60‑day timeliness rule against the trial date in effect when the motion is filed)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal)
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (Rule 47(a) fair‑notice pleading standard)
- Mo‑Vac Serv. Co. v. Escobedo, 603 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. 2020) (scope of intentional‑injury exception to workers’ compensation exclusive remedy)
- In re Bustamante, 510 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. 2016) (Rule 47(a) fair‑notice suffices for third‑party designation)