Southwest Pipe Services, Inc and Joe Briers v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
01-15-00124-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 26, 2015Background
- Southwest Pipe Services, Inc. (SWP) rented equipment from Sunbelt Rentals for pipeline removal but hired independent contractor Rodney Beshears to do the work; Beshears removed and sold the pipe, and SWP refused to pay Sunbelt arguing it did not use the equipment.
- Sunbelt sued SWP for breach of contract; SWP filed a Motion for Leave to Designate Beshears as a responsible third party under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.004.
- Sunbelt did not respond to SWP’s motion within the statutory time period; SWP contends the designation was therefore granted as a matter of law and was never contested or cross-appealed by Sunbelt.
- Sunbelt moved for summary judgment (initially and then an amended motion); SWP opposed, relying in part on the responsible-third-party designation; Sunbelt’s amended motion was granted by the trial court after a hearing for which no record exists.
- SWP appeals, arguing summary judgment was erroneous because the unopposed designation of Beshears created a fact issue that precluded summary judgment and any objection to the designation was waived by Sunbelt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment given designation of a responsible third party | Sunbelt contends it was entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract | SWP argues designation of Beshears as a responsible third party created a fact issue precluding summary judgment | Appellant argues the grant was error and requests reversal and remand (appeal brief asserts error; trial court’s judgment was granted but brief seeks reversal) |
| Whether Beshears’ designation is effective and preclusive of Sunbelt’s summary judgment | Sunbelt did not object to the designation and did not cross-appeal the designation | SWP: designation was effective under CPRC §33.004 because Sunbelt failed to timely object | Appellant asserts designation was effective as a matter of law and Sunbelt waived objections |
| Whether Sunbelt waived any challenge to applicability of CPRC §33.004 | Sunbelt failed to respond to the motion to designate and used the designation in defending summary judgment motions | SWP: any challenge is waived because no timely objection or cross-appeal was made | Appellant contends waiver bars Sunbelt from now disputing the designation |
| Whether summary judgment deprived SWP of its right to have any factual disputes decided by a jury | Sunbelt relied on summary judgment procedure to dispose of the claim | SWP: factual dispute exists regarding who caused the alleged harm because Beshears removed and sold the pipe | Appellant argues summary judgment improperly resolved disputes that should be for jury fact-finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1989) (movant must establish entitlement to summary judgment before nonmovant must produce evidence)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (summary judgment aims to dispose of unmeritorious claims but must not usurp jury role)
- Collins v. County of El Paso, 954 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (summary judgment should not deprive litigants of right to trial by jury)
- Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 19 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. 2000) (courts must be cautious about allowing summary judgment to encroach on jury functions)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (court must view summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to nonmovant)