Court Opinion

ID: 9627293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:41:45.095617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:44.500348
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Motions FOR Reheaking AND REHEARING En BANC
LOEEZ, Justice.
Michelle Carey, in her several representative capacities, filed a motion to correct the judgment in two respects to reflect the majority’s ruling to affirm the trial court judgment, and these requested corrections shall be granted. Accordingly, the judgment shall be corrected to include joint and several liability against the sureties on the supersedeas bond. The judgment shall also be corrected to award exemplary damages to Michelle Carey, individually, as well as in her representative capacities.
Carey also seeks rehearing on the settlement credit issue. The civil practice and remedies code defines “claimant” as a “party seeking recovery of damages.” Tex. Crv. Prac. & Rem.Code § 33.011(1) (emphasis added). The supreme court recently clarified the proper procedure for applying settlement credits when all of the plaintiffs are seeking damages for injury *666to the same person. Drilex Systems, Inc. v. Flores, 1 S.W.3d 112, 115, 120-24 (Tex.1999). In Drilex, all of the Flores family were party-plaintiffs seeking recovery of damages for the injuries suffered by Jorge Flores. Thus, they were all included in the. term “claimant” and treated as one claimant for purposes of applying the dollar-for-dollar credit. See id.; Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code § 33.012(b).
The Carey settlement is distinguishable from Drilex, however, in that the Carey parents, who settled separately with Learjet and Lear-Romec, were never parties to the Bexar County lawsuit. They had a separate lawsuit pending in Dallas. The Carey parents do not come within the definition of “claimant” for purposes of this lawsuit and this defendant. Our original opinion, therefore, went beyond the Code and Drilex and expanded the definition of “claimant” to non-parties who also achieve settlements with whomever for whatever reason. That was not our intention. On reconsideration, Serv-Air’s eleventh issue is overruled, and Serv-Air is not entitled to a credit for any settlement amount accorded the Carey parents by Learjet and Lear-Romec.
Serv-Air’s motion for rehearing en banc is overruled. Our amended judgment of August 31, 1999, is withdrawn, and a new judgment which incorporates the changes noted in this opinion shall issue.
GREEN, Justice, concurring and dissenting.