PHMY News on Appeal

PHM&Y’s appellate attorneys handle appeals from PHM&Y cases, as well as cases that originate outside the firm. For more information about our appellate practice, go to the “practices” section of this website. Unless otherwise noted in an individual attorney's profile, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

The following cases currently on appeal are being handled by PHM&Y:

Newsome v. General Motors Corporation
(pending before the El Paso Court of Appeals)

This is an appeal of a defense verdict for General Motors in a product liability, vehicle crashwortiness lawsuit.  The decenent, Dominic Newsome, was killed in a single vehicle accident in 1997 when his S-10 pickup was struck from behind by a drunk driver, went off the road and rolled over.  Plaintiff, the decedent's surviving father, sued General Motors based on allegations that the seatbelt in the pickup was defective and spontaneously became unlatched during the rollover accident, allowing Dominic Newsome to be ejected from the vehicle and killed.  GM responded that there was no evidence that Dominic Newsome was wearing the seatbelt during the accident and no evidence that it came undone.  The jury sided with GM and found that the vehicle was not defective and did not cause the death of Dominic Newsome.  GM was represented at trial by David Prichard and Daniela Gonzales Aldape.  The appeal is being handled by David Montpas.


Rhodes v. Honda
(pending before the Texarkana Court of Appeals)

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Honda for repeated failure to adequately respond to discovery. Plaintiffs appealed. David Montpas is handling the appeal for Honda.

Pochucha v. Galbraith Engineering Co.
(pending before the Texas Supreme Court)

This petition for review revolves around the issue of whether the exception to "limitations" under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004, applicable when a defendant designates a responsible third party and the plaintiff thereafter sues that responsible third party outside of limitations, can be applied to negate the effect of "repose" statutes as well as "limitations" statutes.  The San Antonio Court of Appeals refused to distinguish "repose" periods from "limitations" periods for purposes of the responsible third party statute.  A PHMY attorney prepared and filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel in support of reversing the court of appeals.



Bautista-Gutierrez, et. al. v. Rodgriguez, et. al.
(pending before the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals)

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction order issued by a trial judge in Hidalgo County.  A liability insurance carrier entered into settlement agreements for the total limits of liability with three groups of plaintiffs, all suing the insured defendants over deaths and injuries caused by a terrible trucking accident on the Pharr International Bridge in January 2008.  Each of the three groups of settling plaintiffs made a separate demand for the full policy limits, and the insurer agreed to divide the policy proceeds equally between the three.  Before the settlements could be funded, however, other groups of plaintiffs who had not made demands on the insured or its insurer, intervened and obtain an temporary injunction prohibiting the insurance company from paying the agreed settlements and directing the insurance company to deposit the policy proceeds into the registry of the court.  Both the insurer and the settling plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal.  The three groups of settling plaintiffs are represented by David Montpas.

*Unless otherwise noted in an individual attorney's profile, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.