Court Opinion

ID: 9644096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:47:59.317316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:08.475028
License: Public Domain

KOEHLER, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority of the panel has determined to deny the motion for leave to file Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Concluding that the trial judge may have abused his discretion by ordering that the extra-contractual claims be tried prior to the trial of the underlying contractual claim, I dissent from that determination and opinion and would grant for the following reasons.
Even though the contractual and extra-contractual causes of action are separate and distinct and severance is proper because of prejudice or other valid reason, the extra-contractual claims should be abated until the contractual claim is determined. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Millard, 847 S.W.2d 668, 673 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, orig. proceeding). The extra-contractual claims depend on the result reached in the contractual cause of action. Although it would be possible under Tex. R.Civ.P. 162 for a plaintiff to nonsuit an independent cause of action where there are two or more causes of action, one dependent on the outcome of the other, an argument can be made that in a case such as the one under consideration, a nonsuit of the contractual claim would result in a non-suit of the noncontractual claims as well because they depend on the outcome of the other. To hold that the extra-contractual claims can be tried first could result in the anomalous situation where collateral estop-pel or res judicata would bar the relit-igation of the breach issue or the entire cause of action in the subsequent contractual claim trial. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex.1984). Evidence admissible in the bad faith trial but not admissible in the breach of contract trial would likely have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s determination of the breach issue in the first trial (of the *783bad faith and other extra-contractual causes of action), the very problem that severance seeks to avoid. Finally, assuming that the prior trial of extra-contractual claims results in a judgment for the plaintiff and the subsequent breach trial results in a defendant’s verdict, do both judgments stand? I don’t think so.
Based on the opinion in U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Millard and on what may well be a clear abuse of discretion, I would grant leave to file Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus so that it can be fully considered.