Recent Trial and Appellate Results

TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P. v. FPL Energy Pecos Wind I, L.P., et. al, Cause No: 04-10314, In the 116th Judicial District Court for Dallas County, Texas.

On July 29, 2007, the trial team of founding partner James W. Walker and partners Dan Gus and Mike Watson secured a directed verdict after two weeks of trial on their client's breach of contract claims in relation to three Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreements requiring the delivery of Annual Quantities of Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy Credits for the years 2002 - 2005. The twelve member jury then returned a favorable verdict awarding TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P. a total of $8.9 Million in damages in connection with this breach of contract. The same jury rejected the FPL Energy defendants' counterclaims and awarded them zero damages.  

Baylor Health Care System v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 1933938 (5th Cir. July 5, 2007)

On July 5, 2007, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment entered against the Firm’s clients, a non-profit hospital and its offshore captive insurer, in a reinsurance dispute arising from the settlement of a personal injury lawsuit which exceeded $10 million.  Founding partner Kevin Sewell successfully argued that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties’ agreement to each contribute directly to the underlying settlement precluded the hospital and its captive insurer from seeking recovery of the entire settlement under the terms of the reinsurance certificate.

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1577922 (5th Cir. May 30, 2007) (unpublished)

On May 30, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the Firm’s client, a primary insurer, in a lawsuit filed by an excess insurer seeking to recover contributions it made to the settlement of a personal injury lawsuit.  Founding partner Kevin Sewell argued that a primary insurer which furnishes a defense to its insured is entitled to independently evaluate and determine the settlement value of a lawsuit and is not required to surrender this right to an excess insurer even when the insured’s potential liability significantly exceeds the primary policy limit.  A unanimous panel agreed, holding that the Mississippi’s volunteer doctrine precluded the excess insurer from recovering any portion of its settlement contribution from the primary insurer, despite the fact that the primary insurer contributed less than 20% of its policy limit to the underlying settlement.