Patricia Rocha v. Marks Transport, Inc. and Autonation Toyota Gulf Freeway
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13181
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Patricia Rocha slipped and fell in the waiting area of AutoNation Toyota Gulf Freeway and sued for premises liability; suit filed June 12, 2015.
- Her husband, Jose Rocha, had purchased the vehicle from the dealership in 2012 and signed a sales/finance contract containing a broad FAA-governed arbitration clause; Patricia did not sign.
- Dealership moved to compel arbitration and to stay/dismiss; attached manager affidavit, contract copy, a service receipt showing Jose as customer, and a recording of Patricia calling the vehicle “my car.”
- Trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed Rocha’s case.
- On appeal the dealership conceded dismissal was erroneous but argued the court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order compelling arbitration (relying on Brooks).
- The Court of Appeals refused dismissal of the appeal, held it had jurisdiction (following Childers), and reversed the order compelling arbitration, finding direct-benefits estoppel did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review order compelling arbitration when trial court also dismissed the case | Rocha: appellate review permitted because dismissal makes the order final | Dealership: Brooks prohibits appellate review of interlocutory orders compelling arbitration | Court: Childers controls — where the order compels arbitration and dismisses the suit it is final and reviewable; denial of dismissal-of-appeal motion to dismiss defendant’s challenge affirmed |
| Whether Rocha (a non-signatory) is bound to arbitrate under direct-benefits estoppel | Rocha: her tort claim arises from general premises-safety duties, not from husband’s contract, so estoppel inapplicable | Dealership: Rocha obtained benefits from husband’s contract (warranty repair) and therefore must arbitrate; clause is broad and covers claims relating to the contract or resulting relationships | Court: Direct-benefits estoppel does not apply; Rocha’s premises-liability claim is not sufficiently derived from or dependent on the purchase contract and the trial court abused its discretion in compelling arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Weekley Homes, Inc. v. Forsting, 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (sets standard for direct-benefits estoppel and compulsion of arbitration of a non-signatory’s tort claim when the non-signatory sought substantial direct benefits from the contract)
- Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. v. 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (explains direct-benefits estoppel: non-signatory must seek direct benefit from the contract to be compelled to arbitrate)
- Childers v. Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P., 193 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2006) (trial court order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case is final and appellate reviewable)
- Brooks v. Pep Boys Automotive Supercenters, 104 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (earlier authority treating appeals of orders compelling arbitration as interlocutory; discussed and limited by Childers)
- EnGlobal U.S., Inc. v. Gatlin, 449 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014) (refused to apply direct-benefits estoppel where plaintiff’s tort claim would exist independently of the contract)