Opinion ID: 894884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fortis's Claims Against Ford

Text: Fortis also asserts that the court of appeals erred in not considering the validity of a pretrial agreement regarding its claims against defendant Ford. At a pretrial conference convened under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Fortis agreed to divide the proceeding into two phases: first Cantu would litigate the case with the defendants completely independent from Fortis, and then Fortis would look only to Cantu to resolve its claim for subrogation. The Rule 11 agreement and stipulations in the record, which narrowed the issues presented to the trial court, make clear that Fortis has unequivocally relinquished any claims against Ford. Just as Cantu entered into and is bound by the specific language in the insurance agreement, Fortis entered into and is bound by the specific language in the Rule 11 agreement. Rule 11 aims to remove misunderstandings and controversies that accompany verbal assurances, and the written agreements speak for themselves. [57] As this is a valid pretrial agreement under Rule 11, the trial court had a duty to enforce its terms. [58] Hence, the trial court did not err in dismissing Fortis's claims against Ford, and the court of appeals did not err in affirming that portion of the judgment.