Melden & Hunt, Inc. v. East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation
520 S.W.3d 887
Tex.2017Background
- East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corp. contracted Melden & Hunt to design and supervise a water-treatment plant; post-completion water-quality problems led East Rio to sue for breach of contract, warranties, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.
- To satisfy Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002, East Rio filed an affidavit (certificate of merit) from engineer Dan Leyendecker, P.E., attesting to Melden’s professional errors and describing the factual basis.
- Leyendecker: Texas-licensed P.E., B.S. in civil engineering, president of an engineering firm, 23 years’ experience including design/analysis of water-treatment plants; he reviewed plans, specs, performed inspections and tests, and identified specific design failures (cross connections, clarifier and filtration design, filter-to-waste control, air scour system, etc.).
- Melden moved to dismiss under Chapter 150, arguing Leyendecker was not qualified (not actively engaged/knowledgeable) and that the affidavit failed to supply the required factual basis—claiming Chapter 150 should be read like Chapter 74 expert reports.
- The trial court denied dismissal; the Third Court of Appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affiant was "knowledgeable" and "actively engaged" as required by §150.002(b) | Leyendecker’s education, licensure, role, 23 years’ experience, specific water-plant design experience, resume and review of documents show knowledge and active practice | Leyendecker didn’t explicitly say he was "actively engaged" and his experience statements were conclusory and insufficient | Affiant was sufficiently qualified; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Leyendecker knowledgeable and actively engaged |
| Scope of the statute’s "factual basis" requirement | Certificate need only identify defendant’s professional errors/omissions and the facts supporting those errors, not plead elements of every cause of action | The affidavit must address the elements of each legal theory (like a Chapter 74 expert report) | "Factual basis" means facts giving rise to alleged professional errors/omissions; affidavit need not recite elements of each cause of action |
| Whether Chapter 74 (medical expert-report) standards apply to Chapter 150 certificates | Chapter 150 is textually distinct; prior uses of Chapter 74 were for definitional or procedural analogies, not substantive identity | Chapter 74’s detailed expert-report standard should be imported to require more detailed opinions and causal analysis | Chapter 74 is not substantively imported; Chapter 150’s plain text controls and does not demand a Chapter 74-level report |
| Whether the affiant’s reservation to modify opinions renders the affidavit inadequate | Reservation reflects preliminary nature of certificate filed early, before discovery; does not invalidate stated factual bases | Reservation shows equivocation and lack of firm factual basis | Reservation is acceptable; certificate stage is preliminary and Leyendecker provided sufficient factual detail |
Key Cases Cited
- Levinson Alcoser Assocs., L.P. v. El Pistolón II, Ltd., 513 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2017) (affiant must show some explanation or evidence of familiarity with the practice area; qualifications need not be established solely by affidavit if record otherwise supplies them)
- CTL/Thompson Tex., LLC v. Starwood Homeowner’s Ass’n, 390 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2013) (Chapter 150 dismissal sanction and interlocutory-appeal framework; statute deters meritless claims)
- Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2014) (Chapter 74 provides a useful procedural analogue but does not dictate Chapter 150 substantive requirements)
- Benchmark Eng’g Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park, 316 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (interpreting "factual basis" as events or circumstances giving rise to alleged professional errors)
- Dunham Eng’g, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 404 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (certificate with factual descriptions of expert’s qualifications and the events supporting claims held sufficient)