(Justice Guzman not sitting) 09-0399 BP America Production Co., et al. v. Stanley G. Marshall, et al. from Zapata County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio For petitioner BP America: Thomas R. Phillips, Austin For petitioner Wagner Oil: Pamela Stanton Baron, Austin For respondents Stanley G. Marshall Jr., et al.: Tim Patton, San Antonio For respondents Vaquillas Ranch Co., et al.: David M. Gunn, Houston In this case by mineral interest-holders alleging BP fraudulently continued a lease it had ceased working, the issues are (1) whether the discovery rule tolled limitations; (2) whether BP's communications with a mineral interest-holder amounted to legal opinion or created a false impression that required full disclosure; (3) whether BP, which leased its production interest, can be required to account for future net profits even though it no longer possesses producing wells; (4) whether a successor lessee to BP's interest, as co-tenant, can claim title to the mineral interests by adverse possession against the other tenant; and (5) whether BP's successor to its lease interest can be a bona fide purchaser, if it took title without knowledge of the alleged fraud. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

The principal issues in this personal-injury case involving a car-truck accident are (1) whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence that a second car accident fewer than three months later may have caused Garza's injury and (2) whether the trial court's barring the evidence probably resulted in an improper judgment. Several days after the first accident Garza's doctor ordered X-rays and diagnosed tense muscles for her neck and back pain. Almost three months later, after her car was hit broadside in the second accident, she complained of head and neck pain but hospital X-rays showed no evident injuries. Three weeks later she returned to the orthopedic doctor who treated her after the first accident, this time for radiating pain in her arms and back. A magnetic resonating image - MRI - showed two herniated discs. Another MRI more than a year later revealed two additional herniated discs. In her negligence suit against the trucking company Garza alleged her back injury resulted from the first accident. The doctor who first treated her testified the herniated discs resulted from accident trauma in the first wreck, but he testified he had not reviewed her medical records from the second accident. JPL contends the MRI shows Garza's back injury was not the result of trauma at all. JLG sought to introduce evidence of the second accident, but the trial judge barred any reference to the second accident as not relevant because of JLG's theory that the back injury was degenerative or caused by her weight. The jury returned a $1.1 million verdict for Garza. The court of appeals affirmed.

The issue is whether the trial court properly dismissed a lawsuit without prejudice - providing opportunity to refile it - when Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 150.002 mandated dismissal for failure to include a merit certificate assessing grounds for the suit. In ordering dismissal section 150.002 stipulates that "dismissal may be with prejudice."

The issues in this royalties dispute are (1) whether a grandmother's bequest of all "right, title and interest" in her ranch includes minerals after the surface estate was severed; (2) whether grandchildren who took remainder mineral interests from their father as life tenant can recover royalties Conoco paid on leases it executed without their signatures; (3) whether the appeals court erred by awarding prejudgment interest to the grandchildren, under the Natural Resources Code, for pressing a title dispute; and (4) whether the court erred by awarding the grandchildren $1.1 million in attorneys fees.