In Favre v. Sharpe, a Hall of Fame NFL player contended that another Hall of Fame player defamed him during a TV broadcast. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim, reasoning:

Sharpe’s statements–in response to facts widely reported in Mississippi news and specifically in the just-released Mississippi Today article–could not have been reasonably understood as declaring or implying a provable assertion of facts. His statements are better viewed as strongly stated opinions about the widely reported welfare scandal. 

No. 23-6010 (Sept. 16, 2024).

In Sanders v. The Boeing Co., No. 22-20317 (May 2, 2024), the Fifth Circuit summarized the two key holdings that resulted from certification of a question about the Texas limitations-savings statute (reproduced in full below):

1. “[Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code] Section 16.064(a)(1) applies whenever the previous court dismissed an action for lack of jurisdiction. Thus is so even when the court ‘erred and actually had jurisdiction or could have had jurisdiction had the claims been pleaded differently.'” (citation omitted)
2. “[A] dismissal or other disposition does not ‘become final’ for purposes of Section 16.064(a)(2) until the parties have exhausted their appellate remedies and the court’s power to alter the dismissal has ended.'” (citation omitted, cleaned up).

The Fifth Circuit made/ an interesting observation about the comparative weight of Erie precedent in SXSW LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co.:

Federal cites two federal district courts to support its broader interpretation. …  But these authorities are worth relatively little in this case. Our focus is on Texas law as interpreted by the Texas state courts.

No. 22-50933 (March 21, 2024) (unpublished).

A propane grill exploded; the injured plaintiff won a judgment against the supplier of the propane tank, and the Fifth Circuit reversed in Johnston v. Ferrellgas, Inc.:

[T]he circumstantial evidence on which the Johnstons rely does not cure the want of proof that the tank was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. This is not a res ipsa case. Indeed, the Johnstons did not advance that theory of liability before the district court or before us. In sum, the Plaintiff’s expert admitted that he could not say the tank was defective at the time it left Ferrellgas, making his prior comments about the tank’s condition at that time pure speculation; the tank functioned properly before Johnston used it; the tank and seal are not sealed containers; and both parties agree Ferrellgas successfully refilled the tank with gas under highpressure months before the accident. There is no reasonable basis on which the jury could find the Johnstons met their burden.

No. 23-10019 (March 21, 2024). A dissent saw matters differently.

In Calogero v. Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLP, (discussed earlier this week for stylistic reasons), a panel majority found that two recipients of certain Hurricane Katrina relief stated a viable Fair Debt Collection Act claim when:

• The longest possible limitations period (10 years) had run by the time the demand letters requested payment; and
• The demand letters threatened a claim for attorneys fees, when the relevant documents only created a specific right to potential fee recovery that did not include the alleged debt at issue.

The third judge, without opinion, concurred in the result only. No. 22-30487 (March 15, 2024).

The plaintiffs’ takings claim failed in Treme v. St. John the Baptist Parish Council, when the relevant mineral lease was “for a period of Three (3) years from the date Lessee procures approval to commence operations frm local, state and federal authorities, as needed ….”  The requirement of government approvals created a “suspensive condition” to the lease’s effectiveness, and “[b]ecuase they have not been obtained, the district court was correct in determining that the lease had not yet become effective.” No. 23-30084 (Feb. 16, 2024).

The contract between Catalyst (a consulting firm) and CBS (an equipment-rental company), required payment of a substantial fee if CBS satisfied the contract’s requirements as to a “Transaction.” The Fifth Circuit held that the contract supplanted the “procuring cause doctrine” recognized by Texas law as a default rule for such business situations, and further held that under the contract, Catalyst had made the required showing to recover its fee. Catalyst Strategic Advisors LLC v. Three Diamond Capital SBC LLC, No. 23-20030 (Feb. 22, 2024).

After the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question about an arcane Texas limitations-tolling statute, the Fifth Court applied that answer in a later case presenting the same issue, Bullock v. UT-Arlington:

“The state trial court dismissed her case on June 8, 2020, for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was affirmed by the state appellate court on May 20, 2021. The appellate court’s plenary power expired on July 19, 2021. Under the Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 16.064(a)(2), Plaintiff had sixty days from July 19, 2021, in which she could refile her action in a court of proper jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this instant lawsuit on July 16, 2021, before the state appellate court’s plenary power expired and well within the sixty-day grace period.”

No. 22-10013 (Feb. 15, 2024) (citations omitted).

Shaw v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. carefully describes the unique heritage of Louisiana law, and then reached a holding well known to the common law:

“By Shaw’s own allegations, the alleged contract was conditioned on RH wanting to use the at-issue artisans to produce nonlicensed designs and the outcome of the parties’ future negotiations regarding compensation. Because the at-issue agreement left the terms of potential compensation “wide open” to future negotiation, RH and Shaw never entered into an enforceable contract.”

No. 22-30277 (Feb. 15, 2024).

After a massive computer failure, Southwest sued one of its cyber risk insures about five categories of damages (vouchers, frequent-flier miles, etc. used to mitigate the effects of the outage). The district court ruled against Southwest, describing the losses as arising from “purely discretionary” decisions.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. Acknowledging that the policy covered “all Loss … that in Insured incurs … solely as a result of a System Failure,” the Court reasoned:

Here, Liberty argues that the system failure cannot be the sole cause of Southwest’s claimed costs because the “independent” and “more direct” cause of those losses was Southwest’s decision to incur them. But those decisions can only be independent, sole causes of the costs if they were the precipitating causes of the costs. The decisions, like the infection in Wright or the medical complications in Wells, were not precipitating causes that competed with the system failure, but links in a causal chain that led back to the system failure. 

Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 22-10942 (Jan. 16, 2024). The Court noted that “[t]he parties concede that there are no cases directly on point in the context of business interruption insurance.”

The “Lyme Wars” are an ongoing medical controversy about the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Absent Supreme Court review, one front in those “wars” ended in Torrey v. Infectious Diseases Society of America, in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims related to statements in a medical journal: “[T[he district court did not err in holding that IDSA’s Guidelines statements about chronic Lyme disease constitute nonactionable medical opinions.” No. 22-40728 (Nov. 16, 2023).

During an Erie analysis of a Louisiana-law issue, the Fifth Circuit observed: “We are ‘a strict stare decisis court,’ meaning that a prior panel’s interpretation of state law is ‘no less binding on subsequent panels than are prior interpretations of federal law.'” QBE Syndicate 1036 v. Compass Minerals Louisiana, Inc., No. 23-30076 (Oct. 12, 2023). What distinguishes a “strict stare decisis court” from a less-strict one is not entirely clear, but the application of the “rule of orderliness” to state-law issues is well settled.

Carbon Six Barrels, LLC v. Proof Research, Inc., a state-law trademark case about the design of gun barrels, turned on an Erie conclusion about Louisiana prescription law:

While true that Hogg and Crump arose in the context of damage to real property, we, like the district court, see no reason that the general principle those opinions announced should not apply here. The Louisiana Supreme Court made clear that “[t]he inquiry [as to a continuing tort] is essentially a conduct-based one, asking whether the tortfeasor perpetuates the injury through overt, persistent, and ongoing acts.” … This principle is not confined to the real property context. The district court was correct in stating that the earlier cases Carbon Six cites “are generally inconsistent with the [Louisiana] Supreme Court’s holding in Hogg,” and that “Louisiana law does not support the broad proposition that LUTPA’s prescriptive period is suspended as long as a perpetrator of fraud fails to correct his false statements.” This proposition would transform nearly every business dispute into a continuing tort. 

(citations omitted). Also, I spoke about “AI and the Legal Profession” at the recent annual meeting of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit, and used the briefs in this case to illustrate the capabilities (and deficiencies) of generative AI–here is my PowerPoint!

In Self v. BPX Operating Co., the Fifth Circuit confronted a claimed conflict between Louisiana’s forced-pooling laws and a civilian doctrine called “negotiorum gestio,” andi certified (over a dissent) the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court. I was unfamiliar with the doctrine and the case offers this summary for the uninformed attorney from a common-law tradition:

On the other hand, negotiorum gestio—or management of affairs—“is a typically civilian institution that derives from the Romanist tradition and is found in all civil codes.” La. Civ. Code art. 2292 cmt. (a). Negotiorum gestio applies when a person, the manager or gestor, acts 1) without authority, 2) to protect the interests of another, and 3) in the reasonable belief that the owner would approve of the action if made aware of the circumstances. La. Civ. Code art. 2292. The gestor must have “undertake[n] the management with the ‘benefit’ of the owner in mind” and not have “act[ed] in [its] own interest or contrary to the actual or presumed intention of the owner.” Id. cmts. (c)-(d) … Only if all these requirements are met does a person qualify as a gestor such that “[t]he owner whose affair has been managed is bound to fulfill the obligations that the manager has undertaken as a prudent administrator and to reimburse the manager for all necessary and useful expenses.” La. Civ. Code art. 2297. Negotiorum gestio is “rooted in altruism,” and its purpose is to “encourage people to assist friends and neighbors in need.”

No. 22-30243 (Sept. 8, 2023).

The Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, for problems with party joinder, in PHH Mortgage Co. v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co.

The key distinction that led to reversal was this: “The [Texas] trespass-to-try-title statute applies only when ‘the claimant is seeking to establish or obtain the claimant’s ownership or possessory right in the land at issue,'” while “a breach of contract claim against a title insurance company ‘invokes the insurer’s obligation to pay the claim or defend title to the property, and this claim is separate and distinct from the claim of ownership.'” No. 22-50930 (citations omitted).

Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. A.H.D. Houston, Inc. addresses – coverage – in strip clubs, holding that the clubs are – exposed.

As with Jan Tiffany’s burlesque act of the 1950s (right), matters “largely turn[ed] on whether the … coverage should be viewed as one ‘umbrella’ of coverage or carved into subcategories … .”

The specific issue involved insurance coverage for damages arising from unauthorized use of models’ photos, and turned on construction of the policies’ exclusions to “advertising injury” coverage. A dissent would certify the issue to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 22-20473 (Aug. 25, 20230.

The quesions in Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co. v. Longhai Indigo Seafood Partners, Inc. was whether Louisiana Newpack (an importer and seller of seafood) owed $995,188.03 to Longhai (a crabmeat exporter) for three orders of crabmeat.

A properly-instructed jury found that the parties did not have a contract, but did have an enforceable “open account” as recognized by Louisiana law. The district court entered judgent for Longhai, but then amended the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to award it nothing.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, noting that Rule 59(e) requires the movant to “clearly establish … a manifest error of law or fact.’ Noting “conflicting case law” in Louisiana on the question whether an open-account claim requires the existence of a contract, the Fifth Circuit held “that it was not a manifest error of law to allow Lonhai to recover on its open account claim.” No. 22-30653 (Aug. 17, 2023, unpublished) (emphasis in original).

Hogan v. Southern Methodist University presented, inter alia, the question whether Texas’s Pandemic Liability Protection Act – enacted in 2021 – bars a student’s complaint about SMU moving to an all-virtual learning environment in 2020.

The student argued that this backward-looking application of the law violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition of “retroactive” laws — a unique feature of that instrument that, like the “open courts” provision, has no counterpart in the U.S. Constitution. SMU, supported by the Texas AG, argued otherwise.

The Fifth Circuit certified this issue to the Texas Supreme Court, noting its importance and the dearth of caselaw on the point to date. No. 20-10433 (July 20, 2023).

Jeanty was arrested, and then released, after Big Bubba’s Bail Bonds posted a surety bond on his behalf. He was then re-arrested after Big Bubba’s complained to the trial court that Jeanty had failed to maintain contact as required by their contract.

Jeanty sued for false imprisonment and Big Bubba’s obtained a Rule 12 dismissal.

Providing a straightforward example of an Erie analsis, the Fifth Circuit reversed. It began with the precedent of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals about the relevant statute, continued by reviewing more recent intermediate-court opinions and finding they were consistent with the earlier precedent, and giving little weight to an advisory opinion from the Texas Attorney General.

Jeanty v. Big Bubba’s Bail Bonds, No. 22-40241 (June 29, 2023).

The complex trial-court system in Texas led to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.065, which suspends limitations for 60 days after a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Simple enough, in theory. But in Sanders v. The Boeing Co., the Fifth Circuit showed the deceptive complexity of that statute when it certified these two issues about the statute to the Texas Supreme Court

1)     Does Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064 apply to this lawsuit where Plaintiffs could have invoked the prior district court’s subject matter jurisdiction with proper pleading?

2)     Did Plaintiffs file this lawsuit within sixty days of when the prior judgment became “final” for purposes of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064(a)(2)?

(The second issue arose from the specific question “whether Texas law would deem dht flight attendants’ tolling savings-statute deadline as running from the time the district court entered judgment or the time [the Fifth Circuit] affirmed that judgment.”) No. 22-20317 (May 25, 2023).

In Direct Biologics, LLC v. McQueen, a preliminary-injunction case involving a noncompetition agreement, the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion when the district court declined to presume irreparableharm. Among other factors reviewed by the Court, it considered:

• “[I]t is unclear whether federal courts should apply a state-law ‘presumption of irreparable harm’ when determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue in federal court.
• “The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to presume irreparable injury based on McQueen’s breach of his non-compete covenants. As previously explained, the Employment Agreement broadly prohibited him from providing “similar” services to Vivex that he provided to DB.  The Operating Agreement covenant was even broader. Thus, McQueen could have breached these covenants even without actually using or disclosing DB’s confidential information or trade secrets.“
• “[T]he district court could have found the presumption rebutted by Vivex’s evidence that McQueen was not in fact competing with DB through his work for Vivex.”

No. 22-50442 (April 3, 2023).

Following Pepi Corp. v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457, 462 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied.), the Fifth Circuit summarized when a quantum meruit claim could be pursued even when an express contract applies:

“First, recovery in quantum meruit is allowed when a plaintiff has partially performed an express contract but, because of the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff is prevented from completing the contract. …

Second, “[r]ecovery in quantum meruit is sometimes permitted when a plaintiff partially performs an express contract that is unilateral in nature.” [and]

Third, “a breaching plaintiff in a construction contract can recover the reasonable value of services less any damages suffered by the defendant if the defendant accepts and retains ‘the benefits arising as a direct result of the plaintiff’s partial performance.’”

Credos Indus. Supplies & Rentals, LLC v. Targa Pipeline Mid-Cont. WestTex, LLC, No. 22-20480-CV (March 24, 2023).

Thanks to diversity jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit reviews some fundamental state-law tort issues along with its loftier docket of constitutional disputes.

In Badeaux v. Louisiana-I Gaming, Badeaux sued for damages after he tripped over a sprinkler head at a casino. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the casino because the sprinkler head was “open and obvious,” noting, inter alia: “There are multiple photographs of the scene showing that: (1) there were working lights in the parking lot on the night of Badeaux’s fall; (2) the sprinkler head was located in a grassy, landscaped area that was separated from the parking lot by a raised curb; and (3) the raised curb surrounding the sprinkler head was painted bright yellow.”

No. 21-30129 (Jan. 20, 2023).

The main issue in Hanover Ins. Co. v. Binnacle Devel., LLC was the interpretation of a Texas Water Code provision about MUDs (“municipal utility districts”) — yes, “MUDdy waters.” Resolution of that issue led to a short discussion as to whether a key contract provision was a damage-limitation clause or a liquidated damages clause, and the Fifth Circuit said:

The damages clause is entitled “LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY/ECONOMIC DISINCENTIVE” and expressly provides for “liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 for each [] calendar day” of delay. This provision does not, in substance, set a mere limitation of liability or delimit damages to “an agreed maximum.” 24 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 65:6 (4th ed.). Rather, the clause provides that Hassell is liable for the liquidated damages of $2,500 for every day the Projects are late. Looks like a liquidated-damages provision to us.

No. 21-40662 (Jan. 12, 2023).

The Fifth Circuit and Texas Supreme Court both recently addressed limitations issues in commercial cases:

• Civelli v. JP Morgan Securities involved an investor’s claim that JP Morgan wrongly transferred certain shares of stock in an oil company. The Fifth Circuit declined to apply the discovery rule, stating: “Any injury incurred from the J.P. Morgan defendants’ alleged negligence in transferring the shares without plaintiffs’ consent arose at the time of the transfer. Because Civelli admits that he knew by February 2014 that they had transferred the funds, the rule of discovery does not apply.” No. 21-20618 (Jan. 11, 2023).
• Marcus & Millichap v. Triex Texas Holdings LLC was a suit against a real-estate broker about the sale of a gas station. The Texas Supreme Court held: “It is undisputed that Triex knew it was injured in December 2012. The question before us is whether the discovery rule defers accrual of Triex’s cause of action until it knew that Marcus & Millichap caused its injury. We hold that it does not.” No. 21-0913 (Jan. 13, 2023) (per curiam).

Yes, the defendant “intentionally” coded a key record in a certain way. But that “intentional” action did not establish an “intent” to harm the victim of an industrial accident:

“Populars fails to show that Trimac knew it mislabeled the tanker. It is not enough that Trimac intentionally coded into its system that the tanker contained MDI. Doing so may have been reasonable, negligent, or reckless … [but Populars instead needed to demonstrate that Trimac (or a reasonable company in Trimac’s position) knew this designation was wrong, and, therefore, knew that Populars’s injury was inevitable. Despite claiming that ‘Trimac knew it possessed chemicals that would produce a violent exothermic reaction when mixed together,’ Populars points to no evidence to support that assertion.”

Populars v. Trimac Transportation, Inc., No. 22-30413 (Jan. 3, 2023, unpublished) (emphasis in original).

Central Crude, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual confirms that under Louisiana law, a pollution exclusion doesn’t require the insured to have the ultimate fault for the alleged pollution:

Neither the CGL policy nor [the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Doerr] requires identification of the party at fault for the oil spill in determining whether the total pollution exclusion applies here. The CGL policy’s total pollution exclusion broadly precludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage that “would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.” The provision requires a dispersal of pollutants but makes no requirement that the party responsible for the dispersal be determined. 

No. 21-30707 (Oct. 26, 2022).

Among other issues from an insurance-coverage case arising from a building collapse, in Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the expense of fire and police personnel was “maintenance” within the meaning of a policy exclusion. The Court found that term ambiguous as to those expenses, and thus construed it against the insurer:

The City paid for the around-the-clock presence of its fire and police personnel to protect the integrity of the site and keep people out.

On the one hand, it is reasonable to read this police and fire department presence as maintenance. By keeping watch over the site and keeping people out, these public safety officials were “upholding or keeping in being” the property in its current state. This aligns with one of the definitions of maintenance listed above.

On the other hand, the definitions of maintenance as “[t]he action of keeping something in working order” or “[t]he care and work put into property” both imply that actions are taken upon the property to keep it in working order. Keeping watch is an action, but it is not performed upon the property and does not involve putting work into the property. Thus, there are at least two reasonable meanings for the term maintenance—one where these expenses would fall under the exclusion and one where they would not.

No. 21-60794 (Oct. 28, 2022) (paragraph breaks added).

In a COVID-19 coverage case, the appellant in Coleman E. Adler & Sons v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co. tried to avoid earlier Fifth Circuit precedent by pointing to a recent opinion from an intermediate Louisiana appellate court. The Fifth Circuit did not accept the appellant’s argument, noting:

1. Orderliness. “Our court’s rule of orderliness applies to Erie cases no less than cases interpreting federal law.”
2. Erie. “[T]here has been ‘neither a clearly contrary subsequent holding of the highest court of [Louisiana] nor a subsequent statutory authority, squarely on point.’ Nor has there been contrary intervening precedent that ‘comprises unanimous or near-unanimous holdings from several—preferably a majority —of the intermediate appellate courts of [Louisiana].’ We have only one subsequent decision from an intermediate state court, and that cannot overcome our rule of orderliness.” (citations omitted).

No. 21-30478 (Sept. 20, 2022).

Henley v. Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., No. 20-60991 (Aug. 31, 2022), presented a thorny issue about tort liability for nondisclosure; here, certain information about rates charged by health-care providers. Applying the relevant Restatement provisions, the Fifth Circuit rejected the district court’s distinction between “basic” and “material” facts, and reversed the dismissal of the nondisclosure claim under Rule 12(b)(6).No. 20-60991 (Aug. 31, 2022).

On a Texas tort-law question about liability for a brake failure, the Fifth Circuit reasoned:

We do not think this question is close enough to warrant certification to the Supreme Court of Texas. See McMillan v. Amazon.com, 983 F.3d 194, 202 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting that certification is usually reserved for close questions of state law with “scant on-point precedent”). Certification is appropriate when “consequential state-law ground is to be plowed” and “any Erie guess would involve more divining than discerning.” Id. Our guess today is a safer bet. The Guijarros have not identified a single case cabining Armstrong to the realm of products liability. See Troice v. Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., 921 F.3d 501, 504–05 (5th Cir. 2019) (declining to certify because multiple intermediate courts had adopted one view of the issue, and the plaintiff had not identified any contrary authority). Nor does such a distinction make sense. Add to the one-sidedness of this issue that neither party requested certification.

       We conclude that Texas law requires plaintiffs alleging a brake defect to put forth “competent expert testimony and objective proof” that the defect caused their injuries.

Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., No. 21-40512 (July 5, 2022).

A contract involving the acquisition of delinquent debt was not unenforceable for lack of a specific price term in Capio Funding LLC v. Rural/Metro Operating Co., LLC, reversing a district-court ruling to the contrary:

The crucial question is whether the term “additional Accounts” rendered the Forward Flow Amendment unenforceable. AMR urges a Shakespearean take—claiming it was but an indefinite promise to the ear, broken only to Capio’s hope.  Capio counters that “additional Accounts” governed all accounts that met the agreed-upon standards. Capio carries the day for two reasons. First, read in context, the term “additional Accounts” has enforceable meaning. Taken together, the plain meaning of the word “additional,” the contract’s clear architecture, and various settled principles of interpretation reveal that “additional Accounts” refers to all qualifying accounts that accrue quarterly.

No. 20-11218 (May 18, 2022). (The Shakespearean reference is to Act V, Scene 8 of Macbeth, when Macbeth reacts in horror to MacDuff explaining that he was not “of woman born”).

Overstreet v. Allstate, an insurance-coverage case about hail damage, presented an unsettled issue under Texas’ “concurrent causation” doctrine. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit hailed the Texas Supreme Court for assistance, certifying the issue to it for review (a topic where the Fifth Circuit had previously certified the same topic, only for the parties to settle). No. 21-10462 (May 19, 2022). (As is customary for such requests, the Court disclaimed any intention to hale the Texas Supreme Court toward any particular result.)

Making an Erie guess about Louisiana insurance law, the Fifth Circuit held: “Consistent with our decision in Terry Black’s, and the decisions of the unanimous circuit courts, we conclude, pursuant to Louisiana law, that losses caused by civil authority orders closing nonessential businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not fall within the meaning of ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property.'” Q Clothier v. Twin City Fire Ins., No. 21-30278 (March 22, 2022).

Hess Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. notes an interesting, and seemingly unanswered, question about section 2.608 of the UCC, which says that a “buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it …..” (emphasis added). One side suggested that this phrase should be read in conjunction with section 2.715, which allows a buyer to recover damages “resulting from the seller’s breach,” while another advocated looking to a line of cases that ask whether a contract breach was a “producing cause” of an injury. The Court noted a dearth of Texas authority tying either suggested approach to this specific UCC provision. No. 20-20663 (Feb. 7, 2022).

The Fifth Circuit found that the state-law question about liquor-sale permits presented by Gabriel Inv. Group v. TABC “checks every box” for certification, reasoning:

1. “The first factor—the closeness of the question and the existence of sufficient sources of state law—weighs in favor of certification. … Both parties have solid textual and structural support for their positions. Likewise, the Commission does not challenge GIG’s contention that the disputes in this case are questions of first impression in any court.”
2. “The second factor—the degree to which considerations of comity are relevant in light of the particular issue and case to be decided—similarly weighs in favor of certification. The Legislature enacted its general ban on public corporations owning or controlling package store permits in 1995, over 26 years ago. According to the parties, only two public corporations—GIG and Sarro Corp., who is not a party to this case—qualify for Grandfather Clause treatment. That may not seem like many. But when you factor in that GIG and Sarro could control up to 500 package stores between the two of them, it threatens to blow a Texas-sized hole in the careful balance that the Legislature created.” (footnotes omitted).
3. “The third factor—practical limitations on the certification process—also weighs in favor of certification. The questions that GIG asks are purely legal. And we are untroubled by any potential delay. ‘[B]y long tradition, the Texas Supreme Court graciously accepts and prioritizes certified questions from this circuit.'”

No. 21-50322 (Jan. 28, 2022).

The Marys, landowners in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, complained that a pipeline had exceeded the scope of a servitude over their land, and sought disgorgement of the pipeline’s profits. The Fifth Circuit reviewed “the concepts of accession and fruits under Louisiana property law.” Unfortunately for the Marys, while they had an ownership interest in the intrusive pipeline by “accession,” it was also the case that: “[T]he gas at issue here was not taken from [their] land. It was produced from the Pedro Well, located on the neighbor’s land.” Accordingly, the “gas is not a fruit; it is a product,” and disgorgement was not an available remedy. Mary v. QEP Energy Co., No. 21-30195 (Jan. 18, 2022).

In Newman v. Cypress Env. Mgmnt.:

• Newman, a pipeline inspector, had an Employment Agreement with Cypress, a business that supplied pipeline inspectors for client projects, and that agreement had an arbitration clause;
• A Cypress affiliate entered a contract to supply services to Plains, a pipeline company
• Newman brought an FLSA action against Plains for unpaid overtime, and Plains sought to compel arbitration, citing the provision of the Newman-Cypress contract.

The Fifth Circuit held that Plains was not a third-party beneficiary of that contract and could not enforce it, noting: “First, Newman’s incorporated-by-reference Pay Letter [between the Cypress affiliate and Plains] did not clearly and fully spell out that Plains could take legal action if either Newman or Cypress breached its terms. To the extent that it named Plains at all, the Pay Letter merely list ‘Plains-Pipeline’ as the ‘Client.’ … [and] Second, the Employment Agreement itself did not clearly and fully spell out that Plains could take legal action if Newman decided to breach its other terms.” No. 21-5023 (Jan. 7, 2022) (emphasis in original).

Terry Black’s Barbecue provides outstanding Texas barbecue from its location in Dallas’s Deep Ellum neighborhood; it also experienced business interruptions from complying with various stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Terry Black’s did not have business-interruption coverage because it did not suffer a direct physical loss of property at its restaurants. The Court reasoned:

…  A “physical loss of property” cannot mean something as broad as the “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.” None of those words fall within the plain meaning of physical, loss, or property. And that phrase has an entirely different meaning from the language in the BI/EE provision. “Physical loss of property” is not synonymous with “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.”
We conclude the Texas Supreme Court would interpret a direct physical loss of property to require a tangible alteration or deprivation of property. Because the civil authority orders prohibiting dine-in services at restaurants did not tangibly alter TBB’s restaurants, and TBB having failed to allege any other tangible alteration or deprivation of its property, the policy does not provide coverage for TBB’s claimed losses.

Terry Black’s Barbecue BBQ, LLC v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-50078 (Jan. 5, 2022).

Under Wyoming law, an indemnity agreement related to an oil-field injury could not be enforced; under Texas law, it could be. Applying the Restatement’s choice-of-law framework, the Fifth Circuit concluded:

1. More significant relationship. “The section 188 contacts rack up points for Wyoming. Cannon started negotiations by contacting KLX’s Wyoming office, and the parties executed the agreements in Wyoming and West Virginia. These place-of-negotiation-and-contracting contacts favor Wyoming and overwhelmingly disfavor Texas. … The only debatable section 188 contact is the principal place of business. Cannon leans on this contact, arguing that it favors Texas because the agreement was drafted by a Texas-based company. But although KLX’s principal place of business is in Texas, its Texas presence is negated by Cannon’s Wyoming domicile.”
2. Materially greater interest. “Wyoming’s interest in promoting worker safety in its oilfields is at its zenith on these facts. The underlying state court proceeding—in which a Wyoming resident was injured in Wyoming by the alleged negligence of a Wyoming oil company—implicates Wyoming’s policy with precision. Enforcing the indemnity provision would discourage what Wyoming hopes to encourage Cannon’s taking steps to avoid injuries in its oilfield operations. On the other side of the scale, Texas’s interest in this dispute is more attenuated. Its interest in enforcing the contract of one of its businesses is lessened when the contract was not negotiated, drafted, or performed within its borders.”
3. Fundamental policy. “Wyoming’s ban on oilfield indemnification is codified and voids any such agreement as being ‘against public policy.’ … Because Wyoming “has taken the unusual step of stating [the policy] explicitly” in a statute, and “will refuse to enforce an agreement” contrary to the policy even when other states connected to the agreement would enforce it, the anti-indemnity policy is a fundamental one.” (citations omitted).

Cannon Oil & Gas Servcs., Inc. v. KLX Energy Services, L.L.C, No. 21-20115 (Dec. 10, 2021).

The district court certified a class based on a Texas statute about late fees, which says: “A landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless … the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from late payment of rent.” 

The panel majority in Cleven v. Mid-Am. Apartments disagreed with the district court’s reading of the statute, and thus remanded: “[T]here is no requirement that a landlord engage in a process to arrive at its late fee so long as the fee is a reasonable estimate at the time of contracting of damages that are incapable of precise calculation. Therefore, the district court erred in interpreting section 92.019 and the case is remanded to the district court to determine if class certification is appropriate.”

A dissent saw matters differently: “That the plaintiffs all raised a common contention about how § 92.019 should be interpreted that is central to their claims for relief is sufficient reason for us to affirm class certification, and we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s partial summary judgment ruling on only the issue of liability at this stage in the litigation.” No. 18-50846 (Dec. 9, 2021).

A Louisiana-based defendant removed a class action brought by an individual citizen of Louisiana, contending that a co-defendant’s “non-diverse Louisiana citizenship could be disregarded because the [statutory] claims against [the co-defendant] were ‘improperly and egregiously misjoined’ with the assignment-based bad faith claim against the removing defendant.”

This concept — called “fraudulent misjoinder” and reliant upon state-law procedural rules — is distinct from the traditional concept of “improper joinder” (a/k/a “fraudulent joinder”), which focuses on the viability of the claim against the nondiverse defendant.

The panel majority in Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co., written by Judge Haynes and joined by Judge Ho, soundly rejected removal based on fraudulent misjoinder, emphasizing the doctrine’s practical consequences: “Adopting the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine will dramatically expand federal jurisdiction, putting the federal district courts in this circuit in the position of resolving procedural matters that are more appropriately resolved in state court—all without a clear statutory hook.” No. 20-30196 (Nov. 30, 2021).

A concurrence by Judge Ho emphasized the importance of the statutory text in rejecting the doctrine; a dissent by Judge Jones focused on “the unusual circumstances here, which bespeak obvious joinder machinations undertaken to avoid federal court.” (both opinions are in the above link). The trio of opinions suggests that this case may receive serious consideration for en banc review.

The question whether an insurance statute violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on “retroactive laws” presented a textbook case for certification in Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods, Inc.: “Beyond the closeness of the question and the dearth of on-point precedent, considerations of comity counsel in favor of certification.” No. 21-20145 (Nov. 22, 2021).

The complexity of the route map for the Erie Railway is well-illustrated by Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, No. 20-30365 (Oct. 15, 2021), in which one judge dissented from the panel’s decision to apply Louisiana tort law without certifying the issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and another dissented about the panel’s decision, based on Louisiana law, about whether prescription (limitations) had been established. No. 20-30365 (Oct. 15, 2021).

In Jungian psychology, the “Trickster” archetype (right) has been called “the embodiment of ambiguity.” In McDonnel Group, LLC v. Jung, LLC, the Fifth Circuit found an embodiment of ambiguity in an insurance policy provision that defined the flood-damage deductible as:

“5% of the total insured values at risk at the time and place of loss subject to a $500,000 minimum deduction as respects … FLOOD.”

The Court observed that “the plaintiffs read the deductible as saying ‘5% of the total insured values at risk … as  respects FLOOD,'” and that “the insurers read the provision as ‘5% of the total insured values at risk at the time and place of loss, subject to a $500,000 minimum deduction … as respects FLOOD.” In other words: “[U]nder the plaintiffs’ theory, ‘as respects FLOOD’ modifies ‘total insured values at risk,'” while “[u]nder the insurer’s theory, ‘as respects FLOOD’ pertains only to the ‘$500,000 minimum deduction.'” The Court concluded that “[b]oth parties’ interpretations are reasonable, so the policy is ambiguous.” No. 20-30140 (Sept. 24, 2021).

Despite the defeat of the Moorish armies in 732 by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (right), the appellants in Luminant Mining Co. v. PakeyBey asserted rights as cotenants to certain real property in East Texas as “’Moorish Americans’ who are ‘sovereign freemen under the Republic . . . .'” The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the appellees, concluding: “[T]the PakeyBey parties contend that Luminant failed to demonstrate hostile possession vis-à-vis its cotenants. They assert that the record is devoid of evidence of actual notice of repudiation of the common title. They further contend that Luminant cannot show constructive notice of repudiation, arguing that constructive notice and ouster require more than Luminant’s demonstrated possession of the land and the absence of a claim against the land by Walling’s heirs. Their argument rests on a correct reading of the law, up to a point. (citation omitted) But Luminant’s possession and Luminant’s recorded deeds are sufficient to give constructive notice of hostility to cotenants and to effect an ouster.” No. 20-40803 (Sept. 17, 2021).

“We are … persuaded that, under Texas law, undercapitalization alone would not be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.” Ledford v. Keen, No. 20-50650 (applying, inter alia, Ramirez v. Hariri, 165 S.W.3d 912, 916 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.)).

The plaintiffs in Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. obtained a “non-adversarial” default judgment against a defunct vocational school. The Fifth Circuit found that Texas’s “no-direct action” rule did not bar their claim against the school’s insurer: “[T]he Plaintiffs’ default judgment against ATI is an adjudication that satisfies the no-action clause. Accordingly, although the non-adversarial default judgment does not bind Cincinnati to its terms,  the no-direct-action rule is not a bar to this coverage suit.” (citation omitted). (Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Court then affirmed the dismissal of their claim on timeliness grounds.) No. 20-50548 (Aug. 13, 2021).

In a will contest, “the district court determined that, because the claims against Craig and Alita were founded on a single deprivation, the loss of the transferred assets, joint and several liability is appropriate.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, quoting the Restatement (First) of Restitution section cited by the district court: “Where a claim against two persons is founded upon a single deprivation as it is where a tort resulting in a single harm has been committed by two persons concurrently or acting in cooperation, the injured person, while having a cause of action against each of the parties for the entire amount of injury, is entitled only to one satisfaction. If he obtains judgment against one and it is satisfied, he thereby loses his claim against the other.” (citation omitted). In other words, “this part of the Restatement ‘effectively imposes joint and several liability on a restitution defendant when the action is founded ‘upon a single deprivation.’” Great American Life v. Tanner, No. 20-60588 (July 16, 2021).

Goodrich v. United States certified a complex issue of Louisiana law to that state’s supreme court; confirming the wisdom of that decision, it summarized a relevant principle as stating: “If the things subject to the usufruct are consumables, the usufructuary becomes owner of them. He may consume, alienate, or encumber them as he sees fit. At the termination of the usufruct he is bound to pay to the naked owner either the value that the things had at the commencement of the usufruct or
deliver to him things of the same quantity and quality.” No. 20-30422 (July 6, 2021) (emphasis added). Hopefully the resulting opinion will clothe the case with quality legal reasoning.