Source: https://www.munsch.com/Professionals/Ronald-Reneker
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:13:57+00:00

Document:
D. Ronald Reneker - Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.
Throughout his lengthy career, the primary emphasis of Ron’s practice has been business litigation on both sides of the docket. He also handles insurance coverage matters on behalf of both carriers and policyholders, manages special investigations and often represents lawyers and law firms in matters relating to professional liability and law firm withdrawals and dissolutions. Ron has tried numerous jury and non-jury cases, and he has also handled many appeals and served as counsel in arbitrations.
In addition, Ron serves as an expert witness in the areas of professional responsibility and attorney’s fees, is an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), is a trained mediator and is a frequent speaker at Continuing Legal Education programs. He has also been a Lecturer in Law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.
Successfully defended an insurance company in an alleged $50 MM claim for insurance fraud based on failure to cover a liver transplant for a two-year child. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the insurer after the close of plaintiff’s eleven-day case-in-chief, determining there was no coverage for the transplant, no fraud and no causation, as a matter of law. The take nothing judgment was affirmed on appeal, with Reneker as lead appellate counsel. See Tettleton v. Employee Staffing Services, Inc., 1995 WL 437201 (Tex. App – Dallas 1995, writ denied).
In a case of first impression, successfully argued on appeal that modification of a contract that is favorable to only one party is without consideration, unless it is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties at the time the contract was made. The appellate court reversed a summary judgment against our client, and the case settled after the appellate decision. See McCallum Highlands, Ltd. v. Washington Capital DUS, Inc., 66 F.3d 89 (5th Cir. 1995), corrected on denial of rehearing, 70 F.3d 26 (1995), citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts §89 (1981).
Successfully represented a former partner of a large law firm in securing payments he was entitled to receive as a withdrawing partner.
Successfully represented a former partner of a large law firm in securing payments he was entitled to receive as a withdrawing partner. The court granted summary judgment for the former partner on the law firm’s attempt to enforce a provision of the partnership agreement that purported to allow the firm to withhold payments from withdrawing partners who competed with the firm. Bradley v. Jenkens & Gilcrist PC, No. 87-11318, 193rd District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Successfully represented a large privately held company against a Big 4 accounting firm in a malpractice case involving inaccurate tax advice. Jury found negligence and gross negligence and awarded client actual and exemplary damages totaling $14 MM. Case settled after trial for a high seven figure sum. SnyderGeneral Corporation v. KPMG Peat Marwick, No. 90-14145, 192nd District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Successfully defended a Texas subsidiary of a Dutch company against a multi-million dollar claim by a former officer under an alleged stock redemption agreement. The jury found the redemption agreement was not signed by the party who was to redeem plaintiff’s stock and no liability on alternative claims for quantum meruit and fraud. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, with Reneker as lead appellate counsel. See Byrne v. Harris Adacom Network Services, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1999, pet denied).
Successfully defended a local physician against claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty in a business transaction. The jury found the adverse party breached the contract first, and the court determined there was no fiduciary duty as a matter of law. Dar v. Willow Bend Montessori LP, No. 416-02770, 416th District Court, Collin County, Texas.
Represented a high profile law firm in negotiating a favorable settlement with a retiring partner, thus averting litigation. The parties reached a compromise after Reneker raised arguments that the retiring partner was not entitled to any payment under the proper construction of the firm’s partnership agreement.
Represented a class of non-employee unit holders and obtained a chancery bench verdict against a limited partnership that owned an institutional stock brokerage firm and its directors. The chancery court held that a plan sponsored by management for forced redemption of units held by non-employees at book value was promulgated in bad faith, in violation of the partnership agreement and thus unenforceable. The case settled after the chancery court’s decision, with plaintiffs receiving fair value for their units. See Gelfman v. Weeden Investors LP, 792 A.2d 977 (Del. Ch. 2001) (denial of motion to dismiss); Gelfman v. Weeden Investors LP, 859 A.2d 89 (Del. Ch. 2004) (decision after trial).
The Court of Appeals affirmed a $3.2 MM recovery for our client and reversed and rendered a large judgment in favor of the adverse party on its counterclaim. In reversing the judgment on the counterclaim, the appellate court adopted the argument Reneker had advanced in support of a motion for summary judgment in the trial court as lead trial counsel. See Kartsotis v. Bloch, 503 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2016, pet. denied).

References: v. 
 v. 
 §89
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.