In re YRC Inc. d/b/a YRC Freight

No. 21-0846 · Supreme Court of Texas · June 17, 2022 · No. No. 21-0846

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief to YRC Inc., holding that its motion to designate the plaintiff’s employer as a responsible third party was timely under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004. The court further held that the workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy provision meant no applicable limitations period barred the designation and that the motion pleaded sufficient facts. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion and to grant leave to designate the employer.

Holdings

  1. A motion for leave to designate a responsible third party is timely when filed on or before the 60th day before the trial date in effect when the motion is filed, even if earlier trial settings existed.
  2. Section 33.004(d) does not bar designation of an employer as a responsible third party when the plaintiff's tort cause of action against the employer has been eliminated by the workers' compensation exclusive-remedy statute and therefore has no applicable limitations period with respect to that employer.
  3. A motion for leave to designate a responsible third party satisfies the pleading requirement when it provides fair notice of the nature of the controversy, its basic issues, and the type of evidence relevant to the alleged third party's responsibility; the motion need not prove the third party's liability.
  4. There is ordinarily no adequate remedy by appeal from the erroneous denial of a timely motion to designate a responsible third party.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether YRC's motion to designate Eaton as a responsible third party was timely when filed 62 days before the then-operative trial setting but after earlier trial settings.
  2. Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004(d) barred designation because the limitations period for Curry's tort claim against Eaton had expired.
  3. Whether YRC pleaded sufficient facts to support designation of Eaton as a responsible third party under section 33.004 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a).
  4. Whether YRC lacked an adequate remedy by appeal from the denial of its designation motion.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (8)

  • In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017)(followed)
  • In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004)(followed)
  • Mo-Vac Serv. Co. v. Escobedo, 603 S.W.3d 119, 124-30 (Tex. 2020)(applied)
  • In re Bertrand, 602 S.W.3d 691, 697-99, 702-04, 706 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re CVR Energy, Inc., 500 S.W.3d 67, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Dakota Directional Drilling, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 288, 292 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Bustamante, 510 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2007)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…