History
  • No items yet
midpage
601 S.W.3d 704
Tex.
2020
Read the full case

Background

  • Products-liability/wrongful-death suit arising from a 2012 home explosion allegedly caused by corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST); trial set for June 2014.
  • Titeflex’s trial counsel, William H. Brewer III, retained Public Opinion Strategies to run a 300-response telephone survey in Lubbock County in May 2014 using third-party vendors (i360 and SSI) and a 20,000-name database.
  • Brewer did not notify the court or parties before the survey; plaintiffs characterized the poll as a "push poll" intended to taint the venire and sought sanctions and fee forfeiture.
  • Evidence showed Brewer had limited involvement in sampling/administration, used industry professionals, but failed to instruct vendors to exclude witnesses, parties, judges, and court staff; some calls reached family members of case-related persons.
  • The trial court found Brewer acted in bad faith and sanctioned him under the court’s inherent authority (ethics hours and >$133,000 in fees/expenses); the court of appeals affirmed.
  • The Texas Supreme Court reversed and vacated the sanctions, holding that inherent-authority sanctions require evidence of bad faith and the record lacked that showing here.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether bad faith is required to impose sanctions under a court’s inherent authority Respondents: courts may sanction abusive litigation practices even absent a specific rule; some urged an alternative "significant interference" standard Brewer: inherent-authority sanctions require a predicate finding of bad faith Held: Bad faith is a required predicate to invoke a court’s inherent sanctioning power; sanctions vacated for lack of bad faith
Whether Brewer acted in bad faith by commissioning/conducting the pretrial survey Movants: survey was a disguised push poll designed to influence the jury pool; Brewer knowingly failed to exclude case-connected individuals and concealed the poll Brewer: engaged qualified, independent vendors; sample and methodology were standard and randomized; no intent to improperly influence; no rule required disclosure Held: No direct or reasonable circumstantial evidence of improper motive or willful wrongdoing; errors/omissions do not alone prove bad faith
Whether an undisclosed pretrial survey that contacts potential jurors or witnesses justifies inherent-authority sanctions Movants: survey imperiled empaneling an impartial jury and intimidated witnesses; sanctions necessary to protect judicial integrity Brewer: surveys are legitimate, can be conducted in county of suit for valid methodological reasons; any taint can be addressed by voir dire Held: Pretrial community surveys are not per se improper; contact alone, absent bad faith, does not justify inherent-authority sanctions
Whether Brewer was entitled to a continuance/adequate notice for sanctions hearing (procedural complaint) Movants: hearing proper; no reversible error Brewer: lacked proper notice and time for discovery from vendors; remand or new hearing required Held: Court resolved on substantive ground (no bad faith) and vacated sanctions; did not reach or need to decide remand issue further

Key Cases Cited

  • Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (federal Supreme Court: inherent powers are potent, must be used with restraint; fees may be awarded for bad-faith conduct)
  • Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1980) (inherent-authority sanctions must be predicated on bad-faith conduct)
  • In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1997) (Texas court upheld inherent-authority sanctions where counsel’s filings and admissions demonstrated deliberate subversion of assignment rules)
  • United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1992) (pretrial district-court telephone survey in venue county did not, by itself, require reversal or a new trial)
  • Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. 2006) (appellate courts independently review the entire record for abuse of discretion in sanctions review)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: William A. Brewer Iii v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC Turner & Witt Plumbing, Inc. Strong Custom Builders, LLC Thermo Dynamic Insulation, LLC State Farm Lloyds Insurance Company Ken and Becky Teel Ross and Meg Rushing
Court Name: Texas Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 24, 2020
Citations: 601 S.W.3d 704; 18-0426
Docket Number: 18-0426
Court Abbreviation: Tex.
Log In
    William A. Brewer Iii v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC Turner & Witt Plumbing, Inc. Strong Custom Builders, LLC Thermo Dynamic Insulation, LLC State Farm Lloyds Insurance Company Ken and Becky Teel Ross and Meg Rushing, 601 S.W.3d 704