593 S.W.3d 212
Tex.2019Background
- Homeowners sued engineers for claims arising from services by licensed professionals; plaintiffs failed to file a chapter 150 certificate of merit with the complaint.
- Chapter 150 allows mandatory dismissal for failure to file a certificate of merit and contains no statutory deadline for a defendant to move for dismissal.
- Engineers participated in extended litigation: late appearance, scheduling orders, discovery, designation of experts and responsible third parties, mediations, continuances, and settlement negotiations before moving to dismiss near trial after limitations had run.
- The trial court dismissed the homeowners’ claims under chapter 150; the court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court (majority) concluded the engineers waived the chapter 150 dismissal right.
- Justice Boyd dissented, arguing the question is waiver (intent-based) not estoppel, and that the engineers’ litigation conduct did not clearly demonstrate an intent to relinquish the statutory, deadline-free dismissal right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the engineers impliedly waived their chapter 150 mandatory-dismissal right by extensive litigation conduct and delay | Engineers’ delay, participation in discovery and scheduling, settlement negotiations, and waiting until after limitations ran show they waived the right | Chapter 150 contains no deadline; waiting and litigation conduct alone do not clearly demonstrate intent to relinquish a statutory right that can be asserted at any time | Majority found waiver; dissent (Boyd) would hold no waiver because conduct did not clearly demonstrate intent to abandon a deadline-free statutory dismissal right |
Key Cases Cited
- Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 262 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. 2008) (distinguishes estoppel from waiver; explains estoppel can bind regardless of intent)
- Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. 2003) (statutory dismissal right without deadline not waived merely by delay; waiver requires clear demonstration of intent)
- Crosstex Energy Servs. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2014) (no implied waiver of chapter 150 where litigation conduct did not clearly demonstrate intent to waive dismissal right)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (litigation conduct can imply waiver only when conduct is unequivocally inconsistent with the right)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (waiver/estoppel analysis in arbitration context; prejudice and different standards apply for FAA-governed arbitration rights)
- RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. 2016) (assesses totality of circumstances for implied waiver of arbitration rights; underscores contextual analysis)