Publications

Intertwined Attorneys’ Fees and Exemplary Damages

The Houston Lawyer
04.01.07

The Supreme Court of Texas sets new ground rules for recovery of attorneys’ fees in mixed contract and tort cases, delimiting federal constitutional boundaries of exemplary damages in Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Chapa, ___ S.W.3rd ____, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 278 (Dec. 22, 2006).

Ms. Chapa paid Gullo $30,200 for a Toyota Highlander “Limited.” When she arrived at the dealership, she was given a base-model Highlander instead. She later accepted delivery of another base-model based on Gullo’s representations that the engine in the base model was the same as the “Limited” and that Gullo would install certain upgrades. Gullo failed to install the upgrades.

Chapa sued for breach of contract, fraud and DTPA violations. A jury found economic damages of $7,213, mental anguish damages of $21,693, exemplary damages of $250,000, and attorneys’ fees of $20,000. The trial court granted judgment on the contract claim, but denied claims for attorneys’ fees because they were not segregated. The court of appeals disagreed and awarded her all amounts found by the jury, but reduced exemplary damages to $125,000. The Supreme Court found error by court of appeals under the one-satisfaction rule. The Court first concluded that because Gullo did not contest damage awards for breach of contract, Chapa was entitled to recover her economic damages under a breach of contract theory. But, the Court looked further to determine entitlement to more.

Read more.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top