Melden & Hunt, Inc. v. East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corp., 511 S.W.3d 743

East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corp. sued Melden & Hunt, Inc. (and others) for claims including breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, negligence per se, and negligent misrepresentation arising from the design/construction of a water treatment plant.
Along with its petition, East Rio Hondo filed a certificate of merit: a five-page affidavit by Dan Leyendecker, P.E., describing his education, 23 years’ experience, and specific review of Melden’s plans, specs, and O&M materials.
Leyendecker identified specific alleged design defects (e.g., cross‑connections, improperly designed clarifier and filtration/backwash systems, inadequate startup supervision) and explained how those defects caused operational and safety problems.
Melden moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002, arguing the affidavit failed to show the affiant was competent/actively engaged in engineering and failed to address each theory of recovery; the trial court denied the motion.
Melden appealed interlocutorily under § 150.002(f); the court of appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the certificate of merit shows the affiant is knowledgeable and qualified to testify / actively engaged in engineering	Leyendecker’s affidavit lists education, 23 years’ experience, and specific water‑treatment design experience; that suffices under § 150.002	Leyendecker’s statements are merely conclusory and do not prove competence or active practice; licensing alone is not proof of active practice	Affiant’s factual recitation of education, experience, firm role, and relevant project experience was sufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether the certificate must reference each theory/element of recovery	The affidavit links alleged professional errors to the plaintiff’s negligence, warranty, contract, and negligent misrepresentation claims and explains factual bases	The affidavit fails to tie specific actions to particular causes or specific elements (e.g., false statement element, valid contract element) and thus is deficient	§ 150.002 does not require element‑by‑element proof; affidavit need only identify professional errors/omissions and factual basis showing claims are not frivolous; affidavit was adequate

Benchmark Eng’g Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park, 316 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (distinguishing certificate‑of‑merit requirements from evidentiary admissibility of expert testimony)
M‑E Eng’rs, Inc. v. City of Temple, 365 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. App. — Austin 2012) (chapter 150 does not require affidavit statements to be competent evidence or state explicitly how affidavit establishes knowledge)
CBM Eng’rs, Inc. v. Tellespen Builders, L.P., 403 S.W.3d 339 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (certificate must identify errors/omissions and provide factual basis showing they contributed to claimed harms)
Dunham Eng’g, Inc. v. Sherwin‑Williams Co., 404 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (upholding certificate that identified professional errors in bid process and linked them to duties violated)
Garza v. Carmona, 390 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2012) (rejected certificate that failed to address alleged supervisory negligence and thus did not support certain claims)
WCM Group, Inc. v. Camponovo, 305 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2009) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for § 150.002 dismissal rulings)
Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co‑Owners, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2009) (statutory interpretation principles applied to chapter 150)
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory construction canon and use of technical meanings)