Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation
454 S.W.3d 518
Tex. App.2011Background
- leak of diesel from underground storage at Silver Spur Truck Stop, Pharr, TX; PSI installed new fiberglass tanks and ATG release-detection system for Head; major leak recovered over 20,000 gallons and extensive groundwater/ditch contamination; regulatory actions by TNRCC with substantial fines against Head; Barron claimed flex connector fault as leak source, evidence then lost; jury found for Head and Titeflex, sanctioning PSI for spoliation and striking defenses; PSI appeals asserting multiple legal errors, including sanctions, limitations, damages, and indemnity outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions and spoliation instruction validity | Head argues sanctions were proper and tied to spoliation | PSI argues sanctions were excessive and lacked nexus | Sanctions affirmed; spoliation instruction upheld as just punishment |
| Limitations defense properly sanctioned | Head argues limitations defense struck; discovery tolling applied | PSI asserts limitations defense should have stood | Limitations defense treated as sanction; affirm denial of judgment on limitations |
| Head's claims sufficiency (fiduciary duty, fraud, contract, warranty) | Head supports jury verdict finding PSI breached fiduciary duty, committed fraud, and contracted failures | PSI challenges sufficiency of evidence linking breaches to damages | Sufficiency upheld for fiduciary, fraud, and contract; jury verdict sustained on merits |
| Titeflex indemnity vs. PSI as manufacturer/seller under Chapter 82 | Head/PSI dispute whether PSI is manufacturer and Titeflex is innocent seller | ||
| (PSI as manufacturer; Titeflex as innocent seller) | PSI contends status determinations were incorrect; indemnity not owed | Jury reasonably found PSI a manufacturer and Titeflex an innocent seller; indemnity awarded to Titeflex | |
| Pre-judgment interest calculation and future damages | Head seeks pre-judgment interest on past damages; future damages may be excluded | PSI argues improper start date and inclusion of future damages | Remand for recalculation of pre-judgment interest; partial success for PSI on issue |
Key Cases Cited
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (two-part test for just sanctions; direct nexus and proportionality; avoid excessive penalties)
- Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2003) (guides assessing whether lesser sanctions would promote compliance)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2003) (spoliation considerations and discovery remedy standards)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency and weight of evidence)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (segregation of attorney’s fees; intertwined claims approach)
- Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2010) (indemnity scope for products; home/building context)