TESCO Corporation (US) v. Steadfast Insurance Company
01-13-00091-CV
Tex. App.Feb 18, 2015Background
- Tesco Corp. (US) appeals a trial court ruling in a declaratory action against Steadfast Insurance Co. regarding punitive-damages coverage under Steadfast’s general liability policy.
- The appellate court previously reversed the trial court’s summary-judgment grant for Steadfast and remanded for further consideration.
- Steadfast moved for rehearing, arguing mootness since underlying personal-injury litigation concluded, potentially mooting the appeal.
- Tesco argued the case remains live due to a pending attorney’s-fees claim under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §37.009.
- Tesco asserted collateral-consequences exception to mootness and that vacating the appellate opinion should also vacate the trial court judgment.
- The court issued a memorandum on rehearing addressing mootness, collateral consequences, and whether to vacate the judgment or leave the current opinion intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot with respect to attorney’s fees under §37.009? | Tesco argues fees remain live. | Steadfast contends mootness. | Not moot; fees issue remains live. |
| Does collateral consequences keep the case alive despite potential mootness? | Tesco contends collateral consequences exception applies. | Steadfast argues mootness still applies. | Not moot under collateral-consequences exception. |
| If the appellate opinion is vacated, should the trial court opinion/judgment also be vacated? | Tesco urges vacating both to prevent reliance on erroneous judgment. | Steadfast seeks only vacatur if the appellate opinion is vacated. | Court should leave its opinion intact and remand; or vacate both if the opinion is deemed moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Farmers Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., 868 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993) (addressing live-controversy and attorney's fees in declaratory actions (mootness context))
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (attorney's fees as live issue when declaratory relief resolved)
- Hansen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 346 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011) (declaratory judgment remains live where fee claims pending)
- Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100 (Tex. App.-Houston (14th Dist.)) (vacatur of underlying judgments when no live controversy)
- Gen. Land Office v. XOY USA, Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (collateral-consequences doctrine foundations)
- Reule v. RLZ Investments, 411 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.-Houston (14th Dist.)) (mootness and continuation of appeal when controversy persists)