Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Low

GULF STATES UTILITIES

COMPANY, Petitioner,

Wyley LOW, Respondent.

No. 00-1249.

Supreme Court Texas.

May Flatten, R. & Rienstra Dowell

Gerald Flatten, Beaumont, for Petitioner. Nettles, Beaumont, for Re- Jimmy W. spondent. delivered the JEFFERSON

Justice Court, opinion the in which Justice OWEN, HECHT, ENOCH, Justice Justice joined. and Justice BAKER case is wheth- principal The issue this modify er court a trial appellate an judgment by deeming finding court’s jury. The an issue submitted Wyley trial court rendered $12,100 plus pre-judgment recover (GSU) from Utilities interest Gulf States ter- for Low incurred GSU his service. minated residential electrical Relying on Rule of Civil Procedure Texas appeals deemed the court of recovery, a DTPA and rendered $22,100 damages, actual judgment for as $150,000 and more than fees. permits to be Because Rule sup- only “in such manner deemed court, trial we port the judgment” part of the court reverse con- appeals. Tex.R. Civ. P. and evidence will clude the verdict damages. Ac- permit for DTPA for Low cordingly, we render $12,000. amount residential elec- terminated Low’s unpaid over dispute after tric service an Low sued GSU for account balances. GSU’s related injunction counter- terminating his service. GSU court The trial severed claimed fraud. claims, the case went a number of out rendered, negligence, to trial on Low’s de- The claims ceptive practices, however, and wrongful trade ter- its let- significantly differed from services, mination and GSU’s fraud ruling. ordered ter (1) claim. A both jury found: $12,100 in- prejudgment Low recover negligence proximately caused them own terest and that the bear (2) occurrence; sixty-percent was re- GSU The is silent about theo- judgment costs. sponsible and forty-percent Low re- was recovery ries of or defense and does (3) sponsible; engaged and in an GSU attorney’s mention fees. unconscionable action or course of action reconsolidating previ- After some of the producing

that a of was cause Low’s dam- claims, ously severed the trial court ren- ages. perma- judgment. dered a final The court found jury damages The Low’s to be enjoined from nently disconnecting GSU food, $5,000 spoiled for past psy- for $100 electrical service to Low’s residence and treatment, $20,000 chological past and for except provided denied all other relief mental It anguish. also determined that 4,1999 August judgment. in the $150,000 awas reasonable fee for Low’s legal for judgment costs. GSU moved not- appealed and GSU Low each the court’s verdict, withstanding the challenging the judgment respect damages. with to Nei- evidence food spoilage, psychological party permanent ther in- challenged treatment, compensable un- damages junction. appeals The court of modified der responded the DTPA. Low to mo- judgment the trial court’s by increasing tion prayed judgment. for un- After $12,100 award from than Low’s to more mediation, successful court-ordered Low $179,000. held Low The court that was again judgment, moved for that requesting to recover DTPA based entitled the district court disregard findings that knowing- on a “deemed finding” GSU and, concerning Low’s negligence without ly engaged unconscionable conduct. a specifying theory recovery, requested appeals Because court concluded that court render based that be could rendered upon the remainder of the verdict. DTPA, it did not reduce Low’s recov- In a to the parties, letter the trial court ery comparative responsibility his motions, overruled Low’s concluding it added fees the total award. findings there was evidence 449. concerning negligence. The court review, petitioned Court GSU this for granted to disregard GSU’s motion contending appeals that the court of erred finding past but psychological damages (1) holding in: that a deemed otherwise denied GSU’s motion for supports knowing conduct under Rule 279 ment The notwithstanding the verdict. anguish damage a mental award under the letter that it for unnecessary stated was (2) DTPA; recovery pre-1995 allowing for the court decide if a for mental spoiled-food presented Low anguish under the DTPA requires value no evidence about the food’s market finding, “knowing” anguish because mental (3) spoiled; awarding after it be based the common- $150,000 fees based on a law or- negligence findings. The letter we prays re- dered a remittitur and reduction of attor- $35,000, judgment except the trial ney par- fees instate court’s and directed the prepare accordingly. food-spoilage damages. ties to finding necessary “knowing” the court of would deem argues because GSU did reforming to to such was correct object question’s omission from mental-anguish all of dam him found, jury charge. 75 because the ages the unconscio found that GSU’s conduct was sup disagree. Rule his action. nable under DTPA cause of finding only when it can be port deemed knowing Low concedes that a sup “in such manner as to deemed found necessary predicate to recover conduct is Tex.R. Civ. P. 279. port judgment.” damages. Latham v. Cas mental-anguish Here, trial court’s tillo, (Tex.1998); 66, 69 State $12,100 jury findings. based on Beaston, Ins. Farm Co. v. Life appeals misapplied Rule 279 to (Tex.1995); v. Star Luna North finding, support a not to the trial deem Sales, Inc., Dodge but to render a new judgment, court’s (Tex.1984). Although the was not in an amount judgment for actual any if unconscionable conduct was asked award. nearly times the trial court’s fifteen that Low asserts a knowingly, committed Mullis, Logan See finding be deemed under knowing should (Tex.1985) of (holding appeals court that Rule 279. a of by deeming finding support erred final of the trial court’s provides the circumstances the verdict instead Rule finding: judgment). permitting a deemed de- ground recovery ... of or When appeals court erred Because the of element, than one fense consists of more judg- render relying on Rule to neces- if or more of such elements one ment, judgment must determine the we recovery ground to sustain such of sary appeals ren- the of should have that court defense, necessarily or and referable Tex.R.App. do so P. 60.2(c). dered. thereto, by are and found submitted only petition for not considering and more of such ele- jury, the one or review, parties’ the but also briefs charge, are omitted from the ments Barber, McKelvy of appeals. court objection, request without or and there Both and Low support factually is sufficient evidence consistently argued entitlement GSU have thereon, court, at the the respective in- judgment based on their party, may of either after notice request theory underly- terpretations legal of the hearing at time before the and and ar- court’s ing the trial rendered, make and file judgment should be rendered gues judgment that ele- findings written on such omitted DTPA, entitling him to the him the support judg- the of ment elements DTPA available full of measure findings If no are such written ment. contends that under the verdict. GSU made, omitted element or elements such judgment, render a court could not by court in shall be deemed found judgment on render a based but support such manner as to that may court here have failed to reduce the theory complaint, is submitted without the damage through oversight, $100 parties are have waived a jury deemed to concluded as a matter of law that trial on issue the omitted and to have nominal recovery need not be reduced. If agreed to submit the issue to the trial judge the trial based on the See, e.g., court. Lehman Hut Shearson findings, erroneously DTPA it reduced the ton, Tucker, 914, Inc. v. 925 recovery by the proportionate responsibili- 1991, (Tex.App.-Corpus writ Christi dism’d ty findings and omitted fees. w.o.j.); Co., Cattle Wilson Remmel 542 post-verdict The court’s ruling letter does (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1976, 942 not illuminate the question because it was n.r.e.); writ ref d see also Little Rock Fur interlocutory and were in- its terms never Dunn, Mfg. niture 222 Co. v. Tex. corporated in judgment. the final (1949)(holding peti reject respective We parties’ argu- object improperly tioner who did not to ments that the establishes record the trial right conditioned waived to a submission court intended to render different issue, jury answer on unanswered parties’ ment. Before we address the re- having the issue must be deemed as been however, maining issues, legal we consider answered the court such manner as dissenting opinion’s contention that we pro to judgment). rule must remand the case on our own motion that, party’s request, vides at a the trial clarify to allow the trial to theory court its judge may findings make written on the judgment. disposition Such an unusual omitted element. Tex.R. Civ. P. 279. But would be on our motion nei- own because if the trial court not make such writ does party requested ther has ever it. Low has ten findings, “such omitted element or ele sought any never for remand reason. found ments shall be deemed the court remand issue concerns the judg in such manner as to fees, as amount an alternative here, When, party ment.” Id. does as arguments. to rendition to at the trial nothing secure a fact level, provides Rule for deemed

The dissent contends that Rule requires findings only affirming But the for remand. text of as basis sup- terminated is some evidence is was trial court’s When case, reverse that the provides port recovery. argues the rule no basis to much remand. finding, rely experience an omitted less on its own decide based on this testimo- property’s value remanding than Rather experiences. own life ny and the judge’s thought pro court to obtain cesses, we will determine authority have found no direct We pleadings, that can be rendered from the purchased measuring the value of food evidence, Low was and verdict. And as But consumption. for house personal utilize the prevailing party, we will market goods having recognized hold no re findings greatest that afford him the value, we have held the measure dam Mem’l covery. v. Texarkana Birchfield the value to the owner: ages Hosp., 747 S.W.2d if, Low has consis first determine consider, in de- trier of fact [T]he DTPA he entitled to a tently argued, value to the owner termining the actual challenges any re judgment. GSU cost, loss, original cost at time covery compensable for the want of dam qualified wit- replacement, opinions damages for jury found actual ages. The owner, nesses, the use including past psychological treat anguish, mental put, as well as property which the ment, spoilage. and food Low did facts. reasonably relevant other complain the court of about Chance, 590 Allstate Ins. Co. damages for trial court’s failure to award It settled is well treatment, psychological and he does past may opine about the property owner determined not seek them here. We have Craig, Porras v. property’s value. damages re anguish that DTPA mental 503, 504 not finding, and Low does quire knowing Low did not contend otherwise. Because situations, replacement In some may not knowing finding and one secure damages properly not measure value does law, may be deemed as a matter of gain an economic may represent because it anguish damages mental not recover Ins. Crisp v. Sec. Nat’l plaintiff. DTPA. (Tex.1963); Co., 326, Pasa 369 S.W.2d Isaac, 149 Tex. dena Bank v. we must determine State Consequently, (1950). This be true remaining damages if from the record personal found, clothing, goods, for household jury spoilage, food element at 328. Crisp, 369 S.W.2d damages. GSU con effects. recoverable as destruction of damages for the the food measure of tends that the evidence worth or value items is the “actual insufficient be such spoilage finding legally use in the owner for value. the articles to the prove the food’s cause Low did the time of they were at condition in which evidence should be argues such any fanciful senti injury] excluding person damages [the measure of general In determin Id. in mar mental considerations.” the difference property, al which is discretion damages, jury has ing and immedi immediately before ket value évi- range damages within place at the where ately injury, after the Oldham, Pfister, at trial. Price presented dence Thomas v. damage occurred. Kimmey, & Low Inc. v. Moore Dist.] (Tex.App.-Houston [14th the re? testimony that his about maintains denied). 2001, pet. electricity contents before his frigerator’s Low knows the circumstances under pled for which he because there purchased items, which he he is “an produced invasion that no actual position the best Rather, estimate the actual loss.” 582 S.W.2d at 584. places worth or value he on those items. spoiled suffered an actual food—but loss— However, Low offered no evidence whatso- he did not offer evidence to meet his ever of the property’s monetary value. prove burden to the food’s value to him. Consequently, he offered no evidence to Moreover, Low does not contend that he range furnish a jury within which a prove could not the food’svalue or that the exercise its discretion to award food had no value. Because Low admit- place. the first Without some evidence of tedly suffered actual but did items, places the value he on the the evi- prove awarded, jury the amount the he dence is legally insufficient to support the cannot recover the as nominal dam- $100 trial court’s award as damages. actual ages. reject argument,

We and that of We next consider whether the court of dissenting opinion, that we al- should appeals erred in reinstating evidence, the finding low to stand without $150,000 attorney’s fees award under the and let the decide the issue based on argues DTPA. GSU that Low has not ob- experience. its own To allow a to tained findings that would authorize attor- stand without evidence of a measure of ney’s fees under the DTPA. agree. damages would an over-recovery risk anor A party may recover attor under-recovery by a factor that would be ney’s only if provided fees for statute or intolerable if the verdict were not for a by contract. Dallas Appraisal Cent. Dist. relatively small amount. provides The law Co., (Tex. v. Seven Inv. for the recovery of minimal damages with- 1992). provides The DTPA out necessity proof, but fees, but Low did not obtain those actions in which nominal damages findings justifying an fees recov are available. ery. stated, As we have Low is not enti Low contends he is entitled to re tled to recover mental-anguish damages cover as “nominal damages” $100 for food DTPA, present under the nor did he evi spoilage if even there nois evidence of the support any dence to recovery other of value, property’s citing Trevino v. South DTPA damages. actual Without actu an Co., (Tex. western Bell Tel. 582 S.W.2d 582 al-damages recovery, a party is not enti Civ.App.-Corpus 1979, writ), Christi no in attorney’s tled to an recovery. fees See which the court appeals of awarded nomi Sys., Southwestern Bell Mobile Inc. nal damages for invasion privacy. of But Franco, 55-56 Trevino support does not recovery of nom (Tex.l998)(plaintiff who receives nominal all, inal in damages this case. First of the zero is not entitled to attor- DTPA expressly provides for the fees). ney’s of “actual damages,” but not nominal dam 17.50(b). ages. § Bus. & Com.Code Finally, having concluded that Tex. Consequently, nominal damages may are not judgment not be rendered under the DTPA, available under the DTPA. St. Paul Sur we turn to Low’s theo alternative plus Lines Ins. Co. v. recovery. Dal-Worth Tank challenge ries GSU does not Co., More mental-anguish damages a negligence over, this case is not like in recovery, properly Trevino which reduced the com plaintiff nominal parative could recover the responsibility findings. We have not testimony the evidence does fails because determined items finding. grocery value several common support jury’s food-spoilage not of- may Low cannot be correct. While we be Consequently, conclude that we $12,000. appeals’ decision to recover actual fended court of should $150,000 recovery of provides for the in fees when No statute award $12,000 attorney negligence in a action. in actual fees trial court awarded Consequently, may request- not recover clearly and indicated the excessive, See Dallas Cent. fees award. need not ed fees were Court 77; Dist., at New Appraisal the court legal analysis correct abandon Indus., view, Amsterdam Co. v. Texas my Cas. can appeals’ error. In we this matter within the confines resolve procedure law. existing and established hearing argument, oral Without I Accordingly, respectfully dissent. (1) part in court of Court: reverses judgment respect with appeals’ analysis The of Texas Rule Court’s (2) judgment of damages; renders begins wrong in the Procedure 279 Civil $12,000 damages; in actual awarding Low rule Certainly may a court not use place. (3) take judgment that Low renders finding contrary to deem a to a nothing on claim. Tex. his attorne/s-fees ment, exactly we do not know but here R.App.P. 59.1. judgment was rendered. The Court what patent ambiguity of the ignores dissenting Justice HANKINSON filed compo- judgment, which contains court’s PHILLIPS, in which opinion, Chief Justice of both a DTPA nents O’NEILL, and Justice Justice strains to negligence recovery, then joined. RODRIGUEZ negligence judgment create own opinion. I do not understand Court’s clearly the trial court’s give just examples of the Court’s To two do not know one or other. Because we First, confusing: I Court analysis find rendered, the trial court what finding that a DTPA “knowingly” states decide, cannot and the court of we not be this case because deemed decided, whether should have sup- would that deemed not be of Low’s deemed of the at 564. port appropriate. claim was begs question But statement pleaded submitted evidence is, an whether what because recovery: theories DTPA violation two of a can be found in issue deemed negligence. Cam and common-law depends on what the Cf. Newton, Mut. Ins. Co. bridge Fire that a deemed know- says. conclusion 1982, 75, (Tex.App.-Dallas 80-81 S.W.2d improper in this case ingly n.r.e.) 279 to deem (applying writ ref d rule presumption that premised on the flawed support of a omitted issue in negligence trial court the rendered recovery ground Second, one that Low’s ment. the Court holds in the refrig- alleged petition submitted testimony about the contents of his The trial court here determined jury). evidence to legally erator is insufficient ver supported jury’s damages actual evidence $100 dict, past psy except award for testify he did not to the “actual because Yet, trial court’s spoiled chological treatment. “monetary value” of the worth” or the ba- clearly identify say does not 79 at 566. To food. S.W.3d hand, recovery. sis for Low’s On one the we do not know what the favorable more trial court mental-anguish awarded dam- until would be the trial court ages by but reduced percent- them Low’s appropriate determines the amount of ac- age of responsibility, which suggests a damages tual theory. either negligence hand, judgment. On the other negligence Under either a or full, Low recovered actual in however, judgment, Low should receive by reduced his percentage responsibili- (Of actual damages spoiled for his food. ty, food, spoiled his which suggests the course, if negligence renders a judgment was for a DTPA violation—not judgment, the court must reduce the dam- negligence. matters, To complicate ages responsi- the percentage trial court did not award fees judgment, bility even though jury it stated in a attributed to Low. See Tex. letter to the 33.012(a).) it intended to § Crv. PRAC. & Rem.Code When fees, award Low but in an plaintiff suffers damage personal However, amount less than requested. he property as a result an injury, plain- even if the trial court intended to award a may tiff for that recover loss. Pasadena negligence judgment simply but neglected Isaac, 47, State Bank v. 149 Tex. spoiled-food to reduce the damages by 127, (1950). That loss is mea- Low’s percentage responsibility, we can- sured the diminution in market value of not reach that conclusion based on the property before injury, and after the record before us. Id.; place as determined at the of injury. Because the trial court determined that White, v. 267 S.W.2d Rosenfield evidence existed to all findings (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1954, writ refd except respect with past psychological n.r.e.). exist, When market value does not treatment, Low could have recovered dam- replacement value is the means of assess- ages based on either his DTPA negli- ing damages. Rosenfield, 267 at gence prohibits claim. Texas law plain- situations, In replacement some val- tiff obtaining more than one properly ue does not measure injury; same plaintiff therefore a must may represent because it gain an economic elect his or her remedy. Infiniti, Gunn plaintiff. to the Crisp Security Nat’l (Tex. O’Byrne, 996 S.W.2d Co., (Tex.1963); Ins. 369 S.W.2d 1999); Servs., Waite Hill Inc. v. World Bank, see Pasadena State at Works, Inc., Class Metal 128. This be true for household If plaintiff does not goods, clothing, personal effects. remedy, choose a the trial court should Crisp, 369 at 328. The measure of render the offering greatest damages for the destruction of such items recovery. v. Texarkana Mem’l Birchfield is the “actual worth or value of the articles Hosp., 747 S.W.2d owner for use the condition in jury Because the found that GSU had act- they which were at the [injury] time of the ed negligently unconscionably with re- excluding any fanciful or sentimental con spect injuries, the same Low should In determining damages, siderations.” Id. remedy. have chosen his fact has discretion to award moved for a corrected to award within range presented evidence at him DTPA damages. But even if he had so, Pfister, not done trial. Price Inc. v. Moore & the trial court should Kim have (Tex. rendered theory pro- mey, App- on the that denied). vided the more favorable And pet. Houston [14th Dist.] food, Food, incapable unquali- that the or spoiled jury does not tence is especially rationally testimony that goods fall within class of fied to evaluate Low’s without testimony of the “actual value and require price eggs of the of dozen recitation Certainly measure needlessly the owner.” this form pound bacon elevates house- damages makes sense for items like over substance. goods apparel. hold and But unlike determining theory Part of which should in- personal property value of requires basis be the obsolescence, clude such as considerations fees, if evaluating amount plaintiff, and even gain economic entitled under the any, Low would be sentiment, quality such food has a basic Tex. Bus. DTPA. See & Com.Code jury that a commonplace identity 17.50(d). Although argued § GSU could, experience from and knowl- its own $150,000 jury award trial court that edge, its without the owner’s assess worth excessive, in- trial court did not was specific value. testimony regarding own its fees in final clude its may draw from their common Juries in a ment. Yet the trial indicated resolving knowledge experiences when that it to award Low attor- letter intended cir- questions. example, fact For some $35,000, ney’s fees but in the amount of expert opin- cumstances when offer com- procedural history on the based jury necessarily is testimony, ion not circum- plexity of issues. Under these by “can form its bound that evidence and stances, precisely in which we cannot tell opinion from other evidence and own rendered, we cannot what was experience and common use of its own conclude, appeals, the court of did Co. knowledge.” Colorado Interstate Gas complaint concerning ex- waived its GSU 14-15 Energy Corp., Hunt 38.2(b)(1). Tex.R.App. P. cessiveness. Cf. denied) (Tex.App.-Amarillo pet. Rather, the trial court must evaluate upon (holding jury could relied have requested Low’s attor- challenge to plaintiffs expert other besides evidence it can determine which ney’s fees before sup- testimony that have

witness would give greater recovery. theory will Low verdict); Corp. see ported K-Mart Thus the court of erred render- (Tex.2000) Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d full attor- judgment for the amount of ing expert testimony should be (holding that sought. ney’s fees that Low jury competent is equally excluded theory recovery, either Under fact opinion to form an about ultimate be to recover his mental- may also entitled testimony expert’s issue or is within is If the anguish damages. Low did knowledge). common Because the amount of dam- negligence, based on testify but instead not to the food’s value percentage be ages must reduced in his spoiled items that listed those food responsibility. See jury that a & Tex. PRAC. refrigerator, the Court assumes Civ. 33.012(a). § is If the this Surely damages. determine Rem.Code however, DTPA, based Simply cannot be true. because whether a deemed court must determine specific monetary amount failed to incant a appropriate. 279 is finding under rule does in detail what he lost describing after claim argues that the entire DTPA GSU no testimony not mean that his evidence asked because the loss, jurors incapa- fails that the were of his question, argues which knowingly upon that assessing based ble on a judgment based required own testimony experience and their unconscionability claim. pre-1995 insis- knowledge. The Court’s common correctly applicable states the DTPA rule 279 to a judgment based on law, but it is not correct that waived theory recovery. of entirely his DTPA claim failure to —GSU’s by rendering The court of erred object to the of knowingly ques- omission for the full amount of charge tion from the possibility raises the sought fees Low in the face of a deemed on that element under excessiveness But challenge. without rule 279. See Tex.R. P. Civ. 279. knowing precisely what the trial Although unconscionability itself does rendered, or even what it require proof intent, knowledge rendered, should have we cannot deter- Koonce, 579, Chastain v. 700 S.W.2d 582- appropriate mine what (Tex.1985), law, pre-1995 under DTPA should be. I Accordingly, would remand recovery mental-anguish damages under this case to the trial court for further theory requires proof of a de- proceedings. I respectfully therefore dis- knowing fendant’s conduct. City See sent from opinion the Court’s and judg- Likes, (Tex. Tyler 489, v. 962 S.W.2d ment. 1997); Sales, Inc., Luna v. N. Dodge Star 115, (Tex.1984). 667 S.W.2d 117-18 A

plaintiff present must evidence on each

essential element of ground his or her

recovery to jury. Ramos Frito- Inc.,

Lay, 784 S.W.2d

When an entire ground of recovery or

defense is omitted charge, from the PROGRAM, INC., KEY SOUTHWEST ground But, is waived. Id. a party’s Sky Program, Texas and La theory d/b/a or defense consists of a Esperanza Boys, Appellant, Home for cluster of necessary issues to support that theory and the charge omits an issue with- objection, out case, as occurred in this GIL-PEREZ, Appellee. Carlo omission does not waive the entire claim. id.; Turner, Braden, See Collie & Inc. v. No. 13-99-114-CV. Brookhollow, Inc., Texas, of Appeals Court Instead, have Corpus Christi. waived a trial on the unsubmitted element, thereby submitting it to the trial Nov. Bank, court to resolve. First State Mor- Chesshir, (Tex. ton v. n.r.e.).

App.-Amarillo writ ref d Ab-

sent written findings on the omitted ele-

ment, the trial court presumed shall be

have decided the omitted factual issue to rendered. Id. at above, explained

747. But as we do not precisely

know what judgment was ren-

dered in this case. The trial court must

the first instance determine theory which

supports greater recovery before de-

ciding whether to deem a notes findings. GSU negligence ... ment. has as- some the trial court’s judgment, such of pects negligence-based P. The court of Tex.R. Civ. in an of actual finding of uncon- award jury’s concluded that the per- corresponding refera- amount necessarily scionable conduct fail- centage responsibility re- anguish mental ble to a DTPA-based asserts fees. Low ure to award The court further held it covery. Rule the dissent’s neg- inconsistent "with 279 does not ligence judgment did position. provides because the not re- The rule for deemed damage by the food spoilage duce findings judgment,” “in of the percentage responsibility. Both “theory or an “error-free judgment” trial court’s letter GSU cite the judgment.” suggest Rule 279 does not ruling as evidence clarify that a remand to the trial court’s trial court intended to render. reasoning proper. would be To the ever contrary, a number of provides the rule The trial does ad- court’s presumptions designed that are to avoid judicate recovery by theories of or defense resulting remands from omissions to the merely recovery name. It Low a awards $12,100 an damages plus charge. presumption appellate as actual interest expect negli- and costs. We would that a applies depends diligence on the damage gence findings based charge post-verdict at $20,000 $100, pro- reduced First, stages. party waives an entire portionate responsibility findings, would theory or defense not ob produce actual damages jecting from charge. to its omission $12,060. intent, Assuming was his incomplete Civ. P. 279. When an Tex.R.

Case Details

Case Name: Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Low

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: May 30, 2002

Citation: 79 S.W.3d 561

Docket Number: 00-1249

Court Abbreviation: Tex.