May 17, 2017
In a significant victory for construction client Hofer Builders, Inc. (HBI), Curnutt & Hafer obtained a judgment finding insurance coverage for an injured HBI worker. Travis County District Court Judge Lora Livingston ruled that HBI’s insurance company owed HBI reimbursement coverage for claims made as a result of fall that left an HBI worker paralyzed.
The accident happened at a construction site in Louisiana. The underlying construction contract required HBI to obtain insurance for its workers, so the company obtained the insurance required. When the HBI employee was injured, however, the insurance company refused to provide coverage. As a result, HBI was sued by the employee and the owner of the project, as well as the owner’s insurer, all claiming HBI owed millions as a result of the fall and failure to obtain insurance.
Together with Curnutt & Hafer, HBI fought the multiple lawsuits that resulted from the insurance company’s broken promise. In the end, HBI was vindicated.
“When we buy insurance, we buy a promise that the insurer will be there to protect,” said trial attorney and Curnutt & Hafer founding partner Doug Hafer. “Too often that promise is broken. We felt all along that the insurance company would have to pay.
“I’m just happy for Tom and the rest of the folks at HBI,” said Hafer. “I am happy we could help.”
Jan 11, 2017
Recently, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a trial court’s jury verdict and judgment obtained for clients of Curnutt & Hafer, L.L.P. in a nursing home death case.
Lead counsel and firm partner Kelly Curnutt commented on the victory: “The jury recognized a track record of elder patient neglect by the nursing home’s management, and we applaud the appellate court for vindicating the jury’s verdict.”
Business trial lawyers Kelly Curnutt and Doug Hafer are both Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
“Although our firm continues its long track record of protecting its corporate clients’ interests, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies,” said Doug Hafer, partner, “we also take pride in helping victims of serious injury and death due to negligence.”
Nov 17, 2016
Team to deliver expertise, success to Wise County
Business trial law firm Curnutt & Hafer, L.L.P. has opened an office in the old Domino Hall on the historic square in Decatur, TX. The office is Curnutt & Hafer’s second location, with its first in Arlington, TX.
Partner Kelly Curnutt said the firm “saw an opportunity to create long-lasting partnerships in Decatur and Wise County through service as advocates, champions and active members of the community.”
“Over the years, we have developed connections and relationships throughout the state of Texas,” said Doug Hafer, partner. “This network allows us to accelerate our work and bring our clients resolution quickly, efficiently and successfully.”
Curnutt & Hafer, L.L.P. was founded by Kelly Curnutt and Doug Hafer in 2000. With their years of experience and success in handling complex commercial litigation as well as personal injury and death cases, the partners have an established practice that provides clients both big firm expertise and an individualized approach.
Curnutt & Hafer will combine its state-wide reach with local expertise by welcoming Pat Wadlington, attorney, and Robin Stout, community relations coordinator and case manager, to the Decatur practice.
“Pat and Robin are extremely knowledgeable and capable,” said Curnutt. “We’re thrilled to begin our Decatur practice with such a talented team.”
An official opening event for the Wise County office of Curnutt & Hafer, L.L.C. is planned for early 2017.
About Curnutt & Hafer, L.L.P.
The team at Curnutt & Hafer provides high-quality representation focused on bottom line results. A recognized business trial practice and listed as a “Go To” litigation firm in the Fortune 500 list of attorneys, they have the know-how and experience to solve every legal problem, whether in the boardroom, the field or the courtroom. Areas of practice include commercial litigation, oil and gas litigation, franchising, insurance coverage and bad faith, will disputes and probate litigation, and injury and death cases. Visit CurnuttHafer.com to learn more.
###
Apr 20, 2016
The Texas Supreme Court issued two rulings on April 15, 2016 that favored parties seeking attorney fees. In Sullivan v. Abraham, a First Amendment case, the Court examined the criteria for the award of attorneys’ fees under Texas’ anti-SLAPP law (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”), which requires mandatory awards of reasonable attorney fees and does not allow a court to reduce the amount for equity and justice. The case is significant because the Texas Supreme Court takes great effort interpreting the statute authorizing attorneys’ fees. This opinion is a primer on the importance of language, grammar, and punctuation when considering a statute. Applying these rules, the Court ruled that the law’s language and punctuation mean reasonable attorney fees are awarded to the winner of a motion to dismiss without consideration of factors such as justice and equity.
In Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control v. City of San Antonio, the Texas Supreme Court found that a city does not have governmental immunity from an attorney fee claim dealing with the activities of a city-owned public utility company. Immunity would apply if the case arose from the city’s governmental function, but not if it arose from the city’s proprietary function. The Texas Supreme Court has distinguished between those functions and acts performed as a branch of the state, and those performed in a proprietary, non-governmental capacity. Under Texas law, a governmental act or function are those things done as a branch of the state—such as when a city exercises powers conferred on it for purposes essentially public pertaining to the administration of general laws made to enforce the general policy of the state. An example would be “garbage and solid waste removal, collection and disposal.” Proprietary functions are those functions performed by a city, in its discretion, primarily for the benefit of those within the corporate limits of the municipality. The operation of a public utility by the city was found to be proprietary under Texas law and did not give the city immunity.
By Douglas R. Hafer
Business Trial Lawyer | Curnutt & Hafer, LLP
