Kay YOST, Appellant v. JERED CUSTOM HOMES, Appellee, 399 S.W.3d 653

In 2004, Brad and Lea Byers hired Jered Custom Homes to construct a Royse City house; the foundation was designed by Childress Engineering Services and the contract included an express warranty and a disclaimer of the implied warranty of good and workmanlike construction.
The contract allocated risk: the Byerses’ design professionals, not Jered, would be responsible for design adequacy and contract documents; Byerses would obtain soil and subsoil tests affecting structural integrity.
In 2006, Kay Yost and her daughter Tracy bought the home; an initial engineer from Childress Engineering purportedly inspected the foundation as generally satisfactory.
The Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) investigation produced Pierry’s report: soil moisture and drainage issues caused groundwork upheaval, but overall foundation within tolerances; repairs were recommended and the TRCC panel deemed certain nonstructural items to be workmanlike defects.
Jered offered to perform Pierry-recommended repairs or pay $4000 for contractor repairs; appellant did not respond; later engineers Porter and Gregg opined negligent pier design and lack of site-specific geotechnical data, estimating substantial repair costs.
On October 16, 2008, Yosts sued Jered for negligence and breach of implied warranties; the trial court granted Jered’s traditional summary judgment and dismissed the claims, though standing and evidentiary objections were debated on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligence proximate causation in claim against Jered	Yost argues Jered’s reliance on others’ designs and lack of site-specific geotechnical data proximately caused damages.	Jered contends there is no evidence that its actions proximately caused damages; expert affidavits are conclusory.	No reversible error; insufficient proximate-causation proof to defeat summary judgment.
Evidentiary sufficiency of summary-judgment evidence	Yost asserts Jered’s experts and Reed report create triable issues.	Jered contends the affidavits are conclusory and fail to link to damages.	Appellate court preserved judgment on negligence; objections irrelevant to key issues; reverses on habitability only.
Implied warranty of good and workmanlike construction	Yost alleges breach of implied warranty despite contract disclaimer.	Centex-like disclaimer bars implied warranty; contract expressly replaces it.	Affirmed summary judgment on this claim due to disclaimer.
Implied warranty of habitability	Yost maintained home uninhabitable due to construction defects.	Appellee argued no habitability breach; discovery responses not pleadings; no admission.	Reversed; remanded for further proceedings on habitability claim.
Standing and mootness after foreclosure	Foreclosure would deprive appellant of standing; sale moots appeal.	Standing remains since appellant had injury and may pursue claims.	Standing existed; foreclosure did not moot the action.

Centex Homes v. Buecher, 95 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. 2002) (implied warranty remedies and limitations for construction defects)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (proximate causation standard requires more than speculation)
Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence summary judgment requires specified grounds)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review of summary judgments; standard for material facts)
Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (standard for traditional summary judgment)
Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (judicial admissions and discovery disclosures)
Centex Homes v. Buecher, 95 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. 2002) (implied warranty considerations (duplicate entry))