PHI, Inc. v. Derek LeBlanc and American Interstate Insurance Company, 13-14-00097-CV

Background

This is PHI, Inc.'s reply brief on appeal following a Calhoun County, Texas jury verdict for plaintiff Derek LeBlanc arising from a helicopter accident (tail assembly failure, emergency water landing, then flotation-system failure and rollover).
Key factual sequence: tail rotor/assembly failure → violent nosedive and emergency water landing → helicopter floated then inverted/rolled over after flotation hoses were misconnected → plaintiff rescued after delay and claimed physical injuries and mental anguish.
PHI contends multiple potential causes and intervening events (violent descent vs. post-landing rollover/water events) make causation for claimed injuries uncertain and indivisibility unproven at trial.
PHI challenges: legal sufficiency of causation finding, trial court’s refusal to submit a design-defect question regarding Apical’s flotation system, charge errors about damages tied to the “occurrence in question,” sufficiency of past medical expense evidence, and denial of a $95,000 settlement credit (maritime-law waiver dispute).
PHI asks this Court to reverse and render a take-nothing judgment or, alternatively, reverse and remand for new trial or partial reversal (e.g., as to past medical expenses and settlement credit).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument (PHI)	Held (as urged by PHI in this brief)
Legal sufficiency of causation finding	LeBlanc: the crash, inversion, and wait to be rescued constitute an indivisible injury so proximate causation can be imputed to PHI	PHI: insufficient evidence ties injuries specifically to post-landing rollover; plaintiff waived charge objection about indivisibility; under charge given, evidence is legally insufficient	PHI urges reversal and rendition because evidence is legally insufficient under the charge actually given
Waiver / measurement against jury charge	LeBlanc: court should consider an alternative instruction treating events as one indivisible occurrence	PHI: LeBlanc failed to preserve objection to the trial court’s definition of "occurrence in question," so sufficiency must be measured against the charge given	PHI asserts error preserved by waiver rule requires reversal if charge-based sufficiency lacking
Design-defect submission re: Apical flotation system	LeBlanc: no evidence of defect, safer alternative, or unreasonable danger; defect was open and obvious	PHI: evidence (expert testimony and FAA/NTSB observations; subsequent design change by Apical) showed a feasible, safer alternative and unreasonable risk; trial court erred by subsuming design-defect into negligence	PHI argues the court should have submitted the design-defect question and requests remand for that error
Past medical expenses & settlement credit	LeBlanc: award of past medicals and denial of PHI’s $95,000 settlement credit were proper; maritime law applies	PHI: much of awarded medicals unpaid or not shown legally payable by plaintiff under Texas law; LeBlanc expressly disavowed maritime law in pleadings so he waived it; PHI entitled to $95,000 credit	PHI requests reversal and rendition as to past medicals (or partial reversal) and a $95,000 credit; urges reversal of judgment if credits/medicals not corrected

Key Cases Cited

Coats v. Penrod, 61 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1995) (multiple negligent acts combined to cause a single injurious event).
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (sufficiency of the evidence measured against the charge given absent proper objection).
In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003) (preservation of error requires specific objection to charge).
Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (same; need for specific trial objections to preserve charge error).
Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (open-and-obvious defect and role of warnings in strict liability/design-defect analyses).
Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2012) (Texas limits on recoverable medical expenses — must be paid or legally obligated to be paid).
General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1993) (party may waive application of maritime law).
Niche Oilfield Servs., LLC v. Carter, 331 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (choice-of-law pleading can implicate maritime law; distinguishable per PHI).
Landers v. East Tex. Salt Water Disp. Co., 248 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1952) (examples of successive causes vs. single combined occurrence).
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Edwards, 512 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. Civ. App. — Tyler 1974) (defendants’ negligence must combine to cause a single indivisible injury for joint liability under Restatement §433A).