The Subrogation Strategist

In Ryan Eng’g, Inc. v. Mond Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 14-23-00960-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1681, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) affirmed a trial court ruling denying the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Ryan Engineering Inc. (Ryan) with respect to the professional negligence claim asserted by the plaintiff, Mond Homeowners Association, Inc. (the Mond). Ryan argued that the Mond’s certificate of merit, filed pursuit to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 150.002(f), made “collective assertions” of negligence against Ryan and two other defendants. The ... Continue Reading

The purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate.Continue Reading

In Eric L. Davis Eng’g, Inc. v. Hegemeyer, No. 14-22-00657-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8899, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the plaintiffs’ certificate of merit, in support of their professional malpractice claim against the defendant engineers, adequately set forth the experience and qualifications of the expert who submitted the certificate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the certificate of merit was inadequate because it failed to establish that the expert practiced in the same specific areas as the defendants in relation to the work at issue. The lower court denied the defendants’ motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that there was sufficient information for the lower court to have reasonably found that the plaintiffs’ expert practiced in the same area as the defendants.

In Hegemeyer, the plaintiffs sued Eric L. Davis Engineering, Inc. (Davis) and Kenneth L. Douglass (Douglass), alleging improper design of their home’s foundation. The plaintiffs retained Davis to design and engineer the home and Douglass prepared the plans for the home. The plans called for the installation of post-tension cables in the home’s foundation. The plaintiffs alleged that the foundation design was improper and brought professional malpractice claims against Davis and Douglass.Continue Reading