Litchfield Cavo Prevails for Property Management Client in Texas Premises Liability Case

Litchfield Cavo Attorney J. Blair Norris and co-counsel from our Dallas-Fort Worth office obtained summary judgment on behalf of our large real estate property management company client in the Tarrant County District Court. At the time of the incident, our client had a contract with the owner of an apartment complex to manage their property located in Tarrant County, Texas.

The case arises from a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff who alleged she tripped and fell on a poorly lit staircase while visiting the apartment complex managed by our client, and sustained multiple serious injuries that included a broken elbow. Plaintiff’s counsel filed their original petition against several other entities 12 days prior to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, and filed their first amended petition adding our client as a defendant several weeks after the statute of limitations had expired .

After being named in Plaintiff’s suit, Litchfield Cavo’s Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed after the initial statute of limitations expired, that was not in accordance with Texas law that requires due diligence when serving a petition. Yet, the return of service reflected that Plaintiff’s counsel did not serve the first amended petition naming our client as a defendant until more than two months after the statute of limitations expired.

In response to our Defense’s motion, Plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations did not apply to bar the lawsuit against our client for several reasons. Plaintiff asserted that our client was using an assumed name for the management of this particular property, and, as such, the original petition that was filed against the apartment complex itself constituted a timely filing against our client .

Plaintiff also asserted that our large real estate property management company client was acting as the alter ego of the originally named defendants and, therefore, a timely filing and service on the other defendants also then constituted timely filing and service upon our client. Opposing counsel argued further that Plaintiff was entitled to additional discovery to gather evidence to support the contention our client was acting under an assumed name and alter ego. In turn, Litchfield Cavo’s attorneys field a brief to dispose each of Plaintiff’s counter arguments.

After a hearing, the Tarrant County District Court ruled in favor of our client and granted our Defense’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Blair is a litigator and trial attorney with more than 35 years of experience. He concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, professional liability, labor and employment law, bad faith claims, executive liability and products liability matters.