RZQ, L.L.C., Hameed Quraishi, M.D., Rafath Quraishi, M.D., Aadam Quraishi, M.D., and Advanced Medical Imaging, L.L.C. v. McClelland and Hine, Inc., 13-19-00471-CV

Background

MHI, a Texas surplus-lines broker, obtained a quote and binder from IEBS/Prime in May–June 2011, but MHI’s underwriter altered those documents to remove IEBS/Prime identifying information and listed MHI as the point of contact. The quote/binder did not disclose forum-selection or choice-of-law clauses that later appeared in the Prime policy.
Appellants (medical-practice entities/physicians) accepted the quote and paid the premium; a storm on June 22, 2011 damaged their property and they submitted a large claim to Prime, which refused payment.
Appellants sued Prime in Hidalgo County; Prime invoked a Utah forum-selection clause, and this court granted conditional mandamus in 2014 directing enforcement of that clause and dismissal of the Texas action against Prime.
Appellants later sued MHI (added 2015) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, DTPA and insurance-code violations, and fraudulent inducement based on MHI’s alleged failure to procure coverage as quoted and its nondisclosure/alteration of insurer identity and policy terms.
The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment for MHI. On appeal this Court (Thirteenth) affirmed dismissal of most claims (including those time-barred) but reversed and remanded the fraudulent-inducement claim, holding there was more-than-a-scintilla evidence to support it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Law of the case — does the 2014 mandamus opinion bind resolution here?	2014 mandamus arose in an original proceeding and did not address MHI; it therefore should not bar new claims against MHI.	The 2014 opinion established as law of the case that appellants were charged with knowledge of policy terms (including forum clause), so it bars appellants’ claims.	Court: law-of-the-case did not compel judgment for MHI because parties, claims, and facts here differ materially from the 2014 proceeding.
Limitations — when did claims accrue?	Accrual occurred on Feb 13, 2015 (or Oct 16, 2014) when court enforced forum clause and forced out‑of‑state litigation.	Claims accrued no later than acceptance of the quote/coverage (May/June 2011); suit against MHI filed June 3, 2015 is untimely for 2-year claims.	Court: accrual no later than June 22, 2011; negligence, DTPA, and insurance-code claims (2‑yr) are time‑barred; breach/fraud/fiduciary claims (4‑yr) survive.
No‑evidence — breach of contract / breach of fiduciary duty	Quote/binder and MHI’s edits created an enforceable promise and duties to procure the policy as quoted.	A quote is only a summary/offer; no evidence MHI promised a policy without a forum clause or that a fiduciary relationship existed.	Court: less than a scintilla to support contract or fiduciary‑duty elements; summary judgment on those claims affirmed.
No‑evidence — fraudulent inducement / nondisclosure	MHI altered documents, obscured insurer identity, failed to disclose forum clause, and appellants relied on the representation/omission.	Brokers are liable only for coverage misrepresentations; no affirmative misrepresentation about policy terms here.	Court: more than a scintilla supports fraudulent‑inducement/nondisclosure (alterations, agent testimony, affidavits); summary judgment reversed and fraud claim remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2012) (overview of law-of-the-case doctrine)
Briscoe v. Goodman Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. 2003) (purpose and limits of law-of-the-case)
Lujan v. Alorica, 445 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (acceptance without signing can affect enforceability of forum clause)
In re Int'l Profit Assocs., 286 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2009) (forum‑selection clauses and fundamental fairness analysis)
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1991) (forum‑selection clauses in form contracts and judicial scrutiny)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant’s burden to conclusively prove limitations and negate discovery rule)
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2001) (discovery rule: accrual deferred until plaintiff knows or by due diligence should know the facts)
Zorrilla v. Aypco Const. II, LLC, 469 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2015) (elements of common-law fraud)
USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (contract‑claim elements and related principles)