Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RUSH TRUCK CENTERS OF TEXAS, L.P. d/b/a RUSH ENTERPRISES, INC., a/k/a RUSH TRUCK CENTER-EL PASO, Appellant, v. ROSARIO Y. MENDOZA, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of MARCO A. HOYOS MARTINEZ, Appellee.
DISSENTING OPINION
Based on the protection afforded by the Texas Constitution, by laws of the State of Texas, and by controlling precedent of the Supreme Court of Texas, I would conclude that Appellees' gross negligence claim is expressly excluded, as a matter of law, from the scope of the arbitration agreement. See TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 26; see also TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. §§ 408.001(b), 408.181, 408.186; Mo-Vac. Serv. Co., Inc. v. Escobedo, 603 S.W.3d 119, 135 (Tex. 2020) (Guzman, J., concurring).1 Moreover, such exclusion applies regardless of whether or not the agreement is enforceable. Additionally, I would further conclude that the arbitration agreement itself provides that claims for workers' compensation benefits and other claims that are “not subject to arbitration under current law,” shall be excluded from binding arbitration. In my view, this clause applies to Appellees' claim for gross negligence seeking to recover exemplary damages for the employer's conduct that proximately caused a work-related death. See Zacharie v. U.S. Nat. Res., Inc., 94 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (recognizing deceased worker's children's claim was brought under Article XVI, § 26 of the Texas Constitution and the Worker's Compensation Act).
Because a lawful basis exists to deny the motion to compel arbitration, I would affirm the trial court's ruling in its entirety. Because the majority concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
FOOTNOTES
1. In Mo-Vac, Justice Guzman's concurring opinion compared the permitted claims brought under the Wrongful Death Act with those brought under the Worker's Compensation Act. See Mo-Vac, 603 S.W.3d at 135 n.22 (comparing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.004 (parents of the deceased may bring a wrongful-death action), with TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 408.001(b) (only the decedent's surviving spouse and heirs may recover exemplary damages)). Describing the more limited scope of the Workers' Compensation Act, Justice Guzman stated: “The Workers' Compensation Act similarly permits recovery of exemplary damages when death is ‘caused by an intentional act or omission of the employer or by the employer's gross negligence,’ but unlike the wrongful-death statute, only ‘the surviving spouse or heirs of the [decedent's] body’ may invoke the exemplary-damages exception to the exclusive-remedy provision.” Id. (quoting TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 408.001(b)).
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 08-22-00226-CV
Decided: September 01, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)