Jose L. Elizondo and Guillermina Elizondo v. Ronald D. Krist, the Krist Law Firm, P.C., Kevin D. Krist, and William T. Wells
415 S.W.3d 259
Tex.2013Background
- 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion produced ~4000 claims; BP settled virtually all claims rather than trying them.
- Jose Elizondo (injured worker) retained attorney William Wells to represent “all claims I may have against BP and others”; Wells demanded $2 million; BP offered $50,000 to settle "any and all claims of Jose L. Elizondo and his family members." Jose signed the release; his wife Guillermina did not sign (she does not read English).
- Elizondos sued Wells and associated Krist attorneys for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, alleging the attorneys obtained an inadequate settlement and failed to pursue Guillermina’s claim before limitations ran.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the attorneys on damages (and other grounds); the court of appeals affirmed. The central factual support for plaintiffs was an expert affidavit by attorney Arturo Gonzalez asserting the Elizondos’ claim had far greater value (opining $2–3 million) and that $50,000 was “nuisance value.”
- The Supreme Court addressed whether Gonzalez’s affidavit and the Elizondos’ lay testimony raised a genuine issue of material fact on malpractice damages, considering limitations on discovery of other BP settlement amounts (confidentiality) and whether proof may rely on comparison to other settlements in a mass-tort setting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez’s affidavit created a fact issue on malpractice damages | Gonzalez’s opinions (based on BP valuation criteria and his BP litigation experience) show Elizondos’ claims had substantial value and $50,000 was nuisance value | Gonzalez’s opinion is conclusory and lacks demonstrable analysis linking Elizondos’ facts to the asserted $2–3M value; expert failed to compare to actual settlements or trial verdicts | Held: Affidavit is conclusory with a fatal analytical gap and does not raise a fact issue on damages; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether expert may base malpractice-damage opinions on comparisons to other settlements in mass-tort context | Comparison to similarly situated plaintiffs’ settlements is a permissible method when defendant settled thousands of like claims | If used, such comparison must be supported by competent expert analysis — confidentiality does not excuse conclusory opinion | Held: Comparison-to-settlements is an acceptable method in mass-tort cases, but Gonzalez did not perform the necessary comparative analysis here |
| Whether plaintiffs’ lay testimony alone can create malpractice-damage fact issue | Jose and Guillermina’s testimony about injuries and loss of consortium shows they suffered damages and raises factual disputes for a jury | Lay testimony cannot establish malpractice damages absent expert proof that, but for malpractice, recoverable amount would have exceeded the $50,000 recovered | Held: Lay testimony insufficient; expert proof is required to show the "true" recoverable value exceeding actual recovery |
| Whether discovery limitations (confidentiality of other settlements) or trial-court discovery rulings preclude summary judgment | Plaintiffs contend defendants thwarted discovery of other settlements and cannot then complain about lack of comparative proof | Court notes plaintiffs waived any appellate complaint about discovery rulings and did not ask for continuance to obtain settlement data; confidentiality provisions limited disclosure | Held: Discovery disputes did not preclude summary judgment; plaintiffs did not preserve or pursue adequate discovery to cure Gonzalez’s gaps |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck, Mahin & Cate v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 20 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2000) (defines malpractice damages as difference between result obtained and case’s "true value" recoverable following trial)
- Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (expert affidavit too conclusory where it lacked reasoned basis linking facts to fairness of settlements)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (expert opinion must have a reliable analytical basis; courts may exclude opinions with insufficient reasoning)
- Cosgrove v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1989) (legal-malpractice damages measure involves recoverable and collectible recovery if suit properly prosecuted)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (discussion of suit-within-a-suit framework for malpractice damages)