Court Opinion

ID: 9645262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:18:55.288491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:26.220163
License: Public Domain

LAGARDE, Justice,
concurring.
I would grant rehearing en banc. Although I would reach the same result reached by the majority, I would do so for different reasons.
The competent summary judgment evidence shows that all of Kenneth W. Perry’s acts and omissions were done by him as an agent of the corporation in his official capacity as president of the corporation, Dun-canville Diagnostic Center, Inc. As such, his acts and omissions were corporate acts and omissions resulting from furtherance of corporate goals, policies, and business interests, as distinguished from Perry’s “own” torts. Cf. Torregrossa v. Szelc, 603 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex.1980). Consequently, I conclude as a matter of law that based on the facts before us, the corporate veil shields the corporate officer, Perry, from *587individual liability. I would affirm on that basis.