Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 10, 2015·No. 03-14-00738-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 4853036 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/10/2015 5:50:17 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK Oral Argument Requested

No. 3-14-00738-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS In The Court of Appeals For The 4/10/2015 5:50:17 PM Third District of Texas JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk Elness, Swenson, Graham § From the 200th District Court Architects, Inc. § Appellants and Cross-Appellees, § § v. § § RLJII-C Austin Air, LP, § RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP § and RJL Lodging Fund II § Acquisitions, LLC § Appellees and Cross-Appellants. § Of Travis County, Texas

CROSS-APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

MUNSCH, HARDT, KOPF & HARR, P.C.

Michael W. Huddleston Benton T. Wheatley State Bar No. 10148415 State Bar No. 24015171 J. Stephen Gibson Tracy McCreight State Bar No. 07866000 State Bar No. 24037064 3800 Ross Tower 401 Congress Avenue 500 North Akard Street Suite 3050 Dallas, Texas 75201 Austin, TX 78701 214-855-7500 telephone 512-391-6100 telephone 214-855-7584 facsimile 512-391-6149 facsimile Email: mhuddleston@munsch.com Email: bwheatley@munsch.com Email: sgibson@munsch.com Email: tmccreight@munsch.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS

MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The undersigned counsel of record, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.2, certifies that the following persons have an interest in the outcome

of this case:

Appellants, Cross-Appellees: Elness, Swenson, Graham Architects, Inc. Appellants, Cross-Appellees’ Weston M. Davis Counsel on Appeal: Gregory N. Ziegler Matthew Mumm Macdonald Devin, P.C. 1201 Elm Street 3800 Renaissance Tower Dallas, TX 75270 Appellants, Cross-Appellees’ Weston M. Davis Counsel at Trial: Gregory N. Ziegler Matthew Mumm Macdonald Devin, P.C. 1201 Elm Street 3800 Renaissance Tower Dallas, TX 75270 Appellees, Cross-Appellants: RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC Appellees, Cross-Appellants Michael W. Huddleston Counsel on Appeal: J. Stephen Gibson Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C. 3800 Ross Tower 500 North Akard Street Dallas, Texas 75201

i MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 Appellees, Cross-Appellants Benton T. Wheatley Counsel at Trial: Tracy McCreight Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C. 401 Congress Avenue Suite 3050 Austin, TX 78701

By: /s/ Michael W. Huddleston

Attorney for Appellees, Cross- Appellants

ii MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellees and Cross-Appellants respectfully request oral argument in this

case. Appellees and Cross-Appellants respectfully submit that oral argument will

help the Court in evaluating the issues necessary to the resolution of this appeal.

iii MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................i

STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT ........................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................ixx I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 1

II. ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................................................................4

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 6 A. Separate Contracts With Separate and Distinct Promised Performances on the Project. ................................................................. 7

B. Separate and Distinct Acts and Omissions Breaching Separate and Distinct Contractual Obligations. .......................................................... 9

C. Suit and Settlements By the Soils Engineer and the General Contractor. ...........................................................................................11 D. The Trial Court Rules That the One Satisfaction Rule Applies.......... 12

E. Attorney’s Fees Allowed Only for Breach of Contract Claim Against the Architect. .......................................................................................13

F. The Trial Court Renders Final Judgment. ...........................................13 IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................................14

A. The One Satisfaction Rule Does Not Apply. ......................................14

B. RLJ Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For the Presentation of the Breach of Contract Claims Against the Architect, General Contractor, and Soils Engineer Either If These Parties Shared a Joint and Several Contractual Duty Or If the Damages Were “Indivisible.” .................. 15

V. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ...........................................................16

A. The One Satisfaction Rule Does Not Apply. ......................................17

iv MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 1. This Case Involves Contractual, Not Tort, Liability. ............... 18

2. The One Satisfaction Rule Was Developed to Address Settlements In Tort Cases With Less Than All Defendants After the Legislature Authorized Joint and Several Liability. ........... 19

a. Generally There Was No Joint & Several Tort Liability at Common Law. ......................................20

b. There Was No General Right of Contribution at Common Law. .......................................20

c. Statute Allowed Collection of All Damages From Any Defendant and Gave Defendant the Right to Contribution from the Other Tortfeasors, But Fails to Address Settlement With Less Than All Tortfeasors. ....................................21 d. The One Satisfaction Rule Was Designed to Address Joint and Several Liability In Tort Cases Only. ....................................................................22

3. The One Satisfaction Rule Only Applies In Cases Involving Joint Liability. ...........................................................................23 a. Unlike Tort Cases, Joint Liability in Contract Cases Requires More Than Common, Indivisible Damages. .....................................25

b. Without a Joint Contractual Obligation, Settlement Credit Under the One Satisfaction Rule Allowed the Architect to Do Indirectly What It Could Not Do Directly. ....................................................................31

c. This Court Has Rejected Application of the One Satisfaction Rule to Contractual Liability Without a Joint Contractual Obligation. ....................................................................32

v MHDocs 6062453_7 12690.2 d. Applying the One Satisfaction Rule Without Joint Contractual Liability Obliterates the Collateral Source Exception. ..........................................33 e. This Case Involved No Joint Contractual Liability of the Architect and the Settling Defendants. ....................................................................34

1) The Performance Could Not Be the Same by Operation of Law: General Contractors Legally Precluded From Preparing Plans & Specifications. ........................34

2) The Performance of the Architect and the Settling Defendants Was Not Alleged To Be the Same.......................................35 3) The Architect Argued That Its Duty Was Different From Those of the Settling Defendants. .............................................38 4. The One Satisfaction Rule Does Not Apply Because the Jury’s Verdict Did Not Award Damages for an “Indivisible” Injury.. 39 a. The Charge Submitted Apportioned Damages. ....................................................................40 1) The Plain Language of the Question Asked Determines What the Jury Found. .........................................................41

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. (Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gym-N-I Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider
220 S.W.3d 905 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP
246 S.W.3d 653 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley
284 S.W.3d 851 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust
296 S.W.3d 545 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Joachim
315 S.W.3d 860 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Sugar Land Properties, Inc. v. Becnel
26 S.W.3d 113 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel
22 S.W.3d 378 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Buccaneer Homes of Alabama, Inc. v. Pelis
43 S.W.3d 586 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Osborne v. Jauregui, Inc.
252 S.W.3d 70 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Robertson v. ADJ Partnership, Ltd.
204 S.W.3d 484 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Allan v. Nersesova
307 S.W.3d 564 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Smoak
134 S.W.3d 880 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O LTD. PARTNERSHIP
164 S.W.3d 675 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Buckner Orphans Home v. Berry
332 S.W.2d 771 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Oyster Creek Financial Corp. v. Richwood Investments II, Inc.
176 S.W.3d 307 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Hoffmann v. Dandurand
180 S.W.3d 340 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Mancorp, Inc. v. CULPEPPEER
802 S.W.2d 226 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed
711 S.W.2d 617 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
665 S.W.2d 414 (Texas Supreme Court, 1984)