Hays McConn RSS Feed

FORTUNE 2012 - Top Ranked Law Firms

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 06:00:00 GMT

1-Jan-12 0:00 AM

And The Defense Wins

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:00:00 GMT

And The Defense Wins

David V. Wilson II

David V. Wilson II of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. in Houston was successful recently in defending claims of breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation made by a scrap metal supplier against a potential customer. On December 15, 2010, Mr. Wilson’s client SDB Trade International, Ltd. and the E&E Group LLC, d/b/a E&E Steel Trading conducted an arbitration, which was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It had taken SDB Trade International, Ltd. three separate federal lawsuits in both Texas and California to compel this arbitration.

The E&E Group LLC contended that the SDB Trade breached an agreement to purchase scrap metal by failing to secure a letter of credit, as had been agreed by the parties. In defending that claim, Mr. Wilson argued on behalf of SDB Trade that E&E Group had, in fact, made misleading statements to SBD Trade to induce it to advance over $70,000 to the E&E Group for the scrap metal and never received a single item in return. Throughout three years of litigation, the E&E Group had refused to refund the deposit. The arbitrator denied the E&E Group’s claims in their entirety, ordered a refund of the $73,750.00 deposit, and awarded attorneys’ fees to SDB Trade International, Ltd.

U.S. District Court Judge Hittner entered a final judgment on the award in SDB Trade’s favor on January 7, 2011, and denied the E&E Group’s motion for new trial on February 8, 2011.

Mr. Wilson is a DRI member and serves as vice chair of the DRI Construction Law Committee.

24-Feb-11 0:00 AM

Fresh Coat and Products Claims in Construction Defect Litigation

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:00:00 GMT

Featured Articles

Fresh Coat and Products Claims in Construction Defect Litigation
by David V. Wilson II and Amoree N. Joe

In a recent decision, the Texas Supreme Court held that a subcontractor is a "seller," under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 82.002(a) and that the manufacturer owes the subcontractor a statutory indemnity duty. Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 2010 Tex. LEXIS 610 at 11 (Tex. 2010). This case may well have just as significant an impact on risk transfer for building product manufacturers in Texas as Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. had in California. See Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 44 Cal. 4th 541, 548 (Cal. 2008). Moreover, at least one other state, Oklahoma, has a statute very similar to the manufacturer's indemnity statute in Texas. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Sec. 832.1.

In Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Fresh Coat contracted with a homebuilder, Life Forms, Inc., to install exterior insulation and finishing systems, also called EIFS, in numerous homes. Id. at 1. The contract required Fresh Coat to indemnify Life Forms regardless of any fault on the part of Life Forms. Id. at 14. K-2 manufactured the EIFS synthetic stucco component. Id. at 1. With the aid of K-2's direction and guidance, Fresh Coat purchased and installed K-2's EIFS. Id. at 2. More than 90 homeowners sued K-2, Fresh Coat, and Life Forms claiming that the EIFS allowed water penetration that allowed structural damage to the walls, termite infestations, and mold. Id. When the homeowners reached settlements with all the defendants, Fresh Coat sought indemnification from K-2 for its settlement with the homeowners and also its settlement with Life Forms, even though there was an indemnity provision in its subcontract. Id.

Chapter 82 of the Texas Product Liability Act (TPLA) regulates a manufacturer's indemnity obligations extending from products liability claims. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.001 (LEXIS 2010). Where the loss was not caused by the seller's actions, the statute imposes a duty on a manufacturer to indemnify a seller and hold the seller harmless of claims against the manufacturer's products. Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 2010 Tex. LEXIS 610 at 16. TPLA defines a "products liability action" as "any action against a manufacturer or seller for recovery of damages arising out of personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defective product whether the action is based in strict tort liability, strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of express or implied warranty, or any other theory or combination of theories." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 82.001(2). The court pointed out that the statute defines "seller" as "a person who is engaged in the business of distributing or otherwise placing, for any commercial purpose, in the stream of commerce for use or consumption a product or any component part thereof." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 82.001(3). Lastly, the court used Black's Law Dictionary to define "product" as "something that is distributed commercially for use or consumption and that is usually (1) tangible personal property; (2) the result of fabrication or processing; and (3) an item that has passed through a chain of commercial distribution before ultimate use or consumption." Black's Law Dictionary 1245 (8^th ed. 2004).

The Texas Supreme Court concluded that EIFS is a "product" as that word is used in the text of Chapter 82 of the TPLA. Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 2010 Tex. LEXIS 610 at 6. The Court rejected K-2's argument that products placed into the stream of commerce lose their status as products when they become integrated into real property even if they were "products" beforehand. Id. at 5. Instead the court pointed out that at least as to Fresh Coat's transaction with Life Forms; the EIFS was "used" as a result of commercial distribution thus placing it within the meaning intended under Chapter 82. Id. at 6.

The Court rejected K-2's argument that even if EIFS is a product, Fresh Coat is not a seller, but merely a service provider that installed a product. Id. at 10. Instead, the Court agreed with Fresh Coat's argument that it did provide EIFS installation services, but it was a product seller and a service provider, and since it did both it may be considered a product seller under Chapter 82. Id. at 11. The Court's conclusion was consistent with the Third Restatement of Torts, that Chapter 82's definition of "seller" does not exclude a seller who is also a service provider, nor does it require the seller to only sell the product. Id.

Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court held that Fresh Coat was entitled to repayment of monies it paid in settlement to Life Forms regardless of K-2's argument that there was an indemnity provision in Fresh Coat's subcontract. Id. at 14. Because Fresh Coat's settlement with Life Forms "arose out of a products liability action" from underlying homeowner claims against Life Forms that were settled, the action for damages allegedly caused by a defective product was appropriate. Id. at 15.

The Court further noted that section 82.002 does not provide K-2 with an exception from its indemnity obligation just because Fresh Coat is contractually liable to another. Id. Moreover, the Court observed that section 82.002(e) expressly provides that the manufacturer's duty to indemnify is in addition to any duty to indemnify created by law, contract or otherwise. Id. at 17. Further, the court held that "a manufacturer is not exempt from any loss for which a seller is independently liable." Id. at 20. The court reasoned that the statute limits this exception to indemnity losses "caused by the seller's tortious or otherwise culpable act or omission for which the seller is independently liable." Id.

Retailers and distributors of building products have been frequent defendants in construction defect litigation. Both of those groups routinely pursue indemnity from the manufacturers of the products they placed into the stream of commerce which ended up in the subject building. In view of this decision, retailers and distributors will likely experience a rise in indemnity claims from contractors and other service providers who sell and install products. Certainly, this opinion will be a powerful tool for distributors to obtain indemnity and avoid EIFS litigation.

In an attempt to support retailers, some state's statutes providing for manufacturer's indemnity have been drafted to require indemnity, even if the product is ultimately determined to not have been defective. See Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Company, 44 S.W. 3d 86 (Tex. 2001); Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 82.002; Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Sec. 832.1. However, even these statutes have been interpreted to have an exception for component part manufacturers. See Bostrom Seating Inc. v. Crane Carrier Company, 140 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004). In Bostrom, a component part manufacturer from whom indemnity had been sought by a product liability defendant obtained a directed verdict at trial. The court of appeals reversed the directed verdict and the Texas Supreme Court granted review. Taking up the issue for the first time, the Texas Supreme Court held that strict products liability does not apply to component part manufacturers who do not participate in the integration of the component into the finished product. Id. In so doing, the Court pointed out that courts around the United States have previously followed this rule for decades. Numerous courts outside of Texas have also held likewise. See Cipollone v. Yale Indus. Prods., Inc., 202 F.3d 376, 379 (1^st Cir. 2000); Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. 1999); Childress v. Gresen Mfg. Co., 888 F.2d 45, 49 (6^th Cir.1989); Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34, 675 A.2d 620, 634 (N.J. 1996); Buonanno v. Colmar Belting Co., 733 A.2d 712, 716 (R.I. 1999); Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 43 (Tenn. 2001). This is also the rule enunciated in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability sec. 5 (1998).

According to the Texas Supreme Court, "if no evidence exists to indicate that the component part itself was defective, the component part manufacturer should be relieved of any liability for a . . . defect in the final product, including any action for indemnification." Bostrom, 140 S.W.3d at 682 (emphasis added). Therefore, unless evidence is presented that the component part was "itself defective," indemnity cannot be obtained from the component part manufacturer. Id. The result is that when issues of indemnity are litigated, retailers and distributors argue that the "product" that is the subject of the product liability action is the window, cladding, etc. designed, created, or supplied by the manufacturer, not the building itself. If they are successful in doing so, they are relieved of the burden of proving that product defective in order to recover indemnity as called for by the Restatement or even the strictest schemes of statutory indemnity.

Because construction defect litigation has been a constant for homeowners, retailers, and contractors in the United States for some time, the Fresh Coat decision has made it even more important for a manufacturer to prove the contractor's independent liability either through the contractor's negligence or other culpable acts to avoid its possible indemnity obligation.

David V. Wilson II is a shareholder in the Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering who practices in both Texas and Nevada. He is Vice Chair of the DRI Construction Law Committee.

Amoree N. Joe is a law student and extern at the law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering located in Houston, Texas. She will be taking the February 2011 bar exam.

20-Dec-10 11:00 AM

Hays McConn: Official Sponsor of Cristo Rey Jesuit

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:00:00 GMT

10-Aug-10 9:00 AM

Saving The Past

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:00:00 GMT

1-Mar-10 0:00 AM

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Honored for Its Service Efforts

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:00:00 GMT

The Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. has recently been honored for the second year by South Texas College of Law for meeting the school’s Law Firm Challenge. Each of the firm’s attorneys who graduated from the downtown Houston law school donated to the school’s Annual Fund to support scholarships for deserving law students. Hays McConn instituted the Law Firm Challenge in 2008 by being the first law firm to donate to the Annual Fund at a 100% alumni level. The law firm’s efforts were featured in the law school’s recent Annual Report to Donors for 2008-2009.

In addition to the Law Firm Challenge, Hays McConn has been listed as an Equal Access to Justice Champion by the Houston Bar Association for the past three years for supporting the Association’s efforts to meet the legal needs of the poor in Houston and Harris County.

“Serving the profession and the public at large should be a goal of any law firm, and we are no different”, says shareholder David V. Wilson II.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. was founded in 1982 and serves clients’ general civil litigation and transactional needs from its offices in Houston, Texas and Las Vegas, Nevada.

STCL Dean, Donald Guter, and HMRP South Texas graduates.

16-Nov-09 10:00 AM

And The Defense Wins

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:00:00 GMT

The plaintiffs, Dudley James Stringer and Gildete M. Stringer, sued Rueby Custom Homes, who built and sold a home to them in Kingwood, Texas. The plaintiffs claimed that they should recover damages for breach of warranty, breach of contract and negligence. They sought damages for foundation repair, repair to their house and diminution in value. They contended that they should receive approximately $350,000 in damages. Rueby was successfully represented at trial by DRI members David V. Wilson, II (lead) and Michael M. Gallagher of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering in Houston, Texas. Rueby named R-Mac Engineering Company, Inc., the engineer, and Lakeside Plumbing Co., who provided plumbing services, as third-party defendants.

The case proceeded to trial on April 15, 2009. After the second day of trial, the judge granted a directed verdict in Rueby's favor as to all claims. Plaintiffs were represented by the Law Office of Michael A. Hirsch; R-Mac was represented by the Law Offices of Eric Yollick; Lakeside was represented by Kroger Frisby in Houston.

Rueby contended at trial that the plaintiffs had not established foundation damage attributable to the construction and installation of the home. Rueby also argued that activities after the house's construction, such as landscaping and the installation of a pool, caused or contributed to cause the plaintiffs' alleged damages. Plaintiffs' liability expert, Weldon Knight, acknowledged he could not testify regarding the building code applicable to the plaintiffs' residence. Further, following the arguments of counsel, the court excluded the plaintiffs' claim for diminution in value, based on the plaintiffs' untimely disclosure of their appraiser's opinions.

After Plaintiffs rested their case, Rueby then dismissed its claims against R-Mac, the engineer. Rueby and Lakeside Plumbing Co. then both moved for a directed verdict. The court granted the motions for directed verdict on April 16, 2009. The plaintiffs took nothing.

6-May-09 11:00 AM

Texas Lets Insurers Cover Punitive Damages

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:00:00 GMT

By Ruth E. Piller, Litigation News Associate Editor

In a unanimous but somewhat confined decision, the Texas Supreme Court has held that its state’s public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage of punitive damage awards for gross negligence in the workers’ compensation context. Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP.

In Stephens Martin, the state’s high court answered a certified question that had been referred to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Does Texas public policy prohibit a liability insurance provider from indemnifying an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence?

The Texas Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that public policy favors the freedom of contract. The court, however, limited its opinion to the workers’ compensation context.

Stephens Martin was brought by the survivors of an employee who was killed on the job. The defendant insurer issued the employer’s workers’ compensation policy, which included customary employer’s liability provisions. After winning workers’ compensation benefits, the employee’s survivors sued the employer for gross negligence, but sought only punitive damages.

The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action in federal court, asserting that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the employer because Texas public policy precludes insurance coverage for punitive damage awards.

After the district court denied the insurer’s summary judgment motion, the insurer appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. That court, in turn, unanimously held that the state’s public policy does not preclude insurance coverage of punitive damages in the workers’ compensation context.

Coverage attorneys say Stephens Martin does not necessarily signal a major change in the way insurance policies will be underwritten or interpreted. Rather, they maintain that the decision is only the latest contribution to a decades-old body of law that has split over whether insuring punitive damage awards should be against public policy.

“The insurance coverage issue of whether or not a policy holder can be covered as a matter of public policy for punitive damages has been kicking around for a number of years,” says John E. James, Wilmington, DE, cochair of the Section of Litigation’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee. Most states have actually resolved the issue, he says, in favor of coverage in limited circumstances, although the states are not unanimous in their approach.

Indeed, in an extensive survey of the law, the Texas Supreme Court summarized the public policy of practically every jurisdiction that has addressed the insurability of punitive damages, finding that 45 states’ highest courts or legislatures have spoken to the issue. Of those jurisdictions:

25 states have generally indicated their public policy does not prohibit coverage for punitive damages;
Eight states prohibit coverage for exemplary damages;
Seven states permit coverage for such damages, but only when the insured’s liability is vicarious;
Three states allow insurance coverage of punitive damages in the uninsured motorist context but have not addressed the issue under other circumstances; and
Two states prohibit insurance coverage of punitive damages in the context of uninsured motorists but have not addressed the issue with respect to other forms of coverage.

Of the five remaining jurisdictions, four of them (which until Stephens Martin included Texas) have yet to address the insurability of punitive damages, and one state (Nebraska) prohibits the imposition of punitive damages.

In Stephens Martin, the supreme court observed that in light of the foregoing statistics, “the majority of states that have considered whether public policy prohibits insurance coverage of exemplary damages for gross negligence, either by legislation or under the common law, have decided that it does not.”

Christopher W. Martin, Houston, a member of the Section’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, cautions that Stephens Martin should not be interpreted as a signal as to how the court would rule on the insurability of punitive damage awards outside the workers’ compensation context. The court’s “opinion does not signal a national trend in insurance coverage. If anything, it is the exact opposite.”

Those who say punitive damage awards should not be covered by insurance point to the policy considerations of punishing the wrongdoer, which is obviously diluted when the wrongdoer’s insurer is required to pay the damage award instead of the wrongdoer itself. However, as the Texas Supreme Court observed in Stephens Martin, there are competing policy considerations, such as the freedom to enter into a contract.

“I think to some extent the philosophy of the court is affected by the fact that our society has become more litigious and that punitives are often excessively awarded in situations even of gross negligence,” James says. “At least the majority of states think it is appropriate to protect a company by permitting it to buy insurance [to cover punitive damages] for a case in which there is a runaway jury.”

1-Jun-08 12:00 PM

Employee Emails Not Protected

Gentry Burke - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT

By Ruth E. Piller, Litigation News Associate Editor

http://www.abanet.org/litigation/litigationnews/2008/june/0608_article_email.html

Employees who believe their email communications with their attorneys are privileged may actually be waiving the attorney-client privilege each time they send or receive email via computers owned by their employer, according to a growing body of law.

For example, in Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center, a New York trial court recently held that emails that a physician sent to his personal attorney via a computer system owned by his employer were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The physician was employed by the defendant hospital, which had an email policy mandating that computer and email systems could be used solely for business purposes and warning that employees had no expectation of privacy in any communication that was created, received, saved, or sent using the hospital's computers.

The physician argued the emails were privileged because they pertained to ongoing litigation between him and the defendant hospital. However, in rejecting the physician’s privilege claim, the court stated that the “effect of an employer email policy, such as that of [Beth Israel], is to have the employer looking over your shoulder each time you send an email. In other words, the otherwise privileged communication between [the plaintiff and his personal counsel] would not have been made in confidence because of the [Beth Israel] policy.” The court added that the physician had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality because the hospital had published a “no personal use” email policy, the hospital reserved the right to monitor all emails, and the physician knew of these policies.

Former Section Chair Gregory P. Joseph, New York City, warns that although lay people might perceive such a rule as unfair, attorneys should know otherwise. “When you’re at work, it’s not your computer,” he says. “If it’s clearly set out that employers have to be able to monitor what employees do . . . then it’s only logical that there is nothing confidential regarding what employees do using electronic communications at work.”

Many employers maintain access to their employees’ workplace electronic communications because they know they can be held liable for any wrongdoing by the employee in the workplace, Joseph notes. “Once the access is granted, the confidentiality is gone.”

Daniel J. Capra, New York City, reporter to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, says that in determining whether an expectation of privacy exists, a key concern is whether the employee had reason to know that his employer could review his emails. “I would think in most cases, the answer is ‘yes.’ If it’s a published policy, you are deemed to reasonably know there could be this oversight by employers.”

Capra says the legal principle espoused in the attorney-client privilege email cases is based on the same reasoning used by courts in determining that employees’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by employers who monitored their employee’s computer usage pursuant to published company policy.

By analogy, Capra says, emails sent to an attorney by a client whose employer has a no-personal-use policy for office emails and computers are tantamount to spoken conversations between the client and attorney that occur as if the employer were in the room. In such a case, there is no expectation of privacy because the attorney-client privilege would have been waived by the presence of a third-party (the employer), Capra says.

1-Jun-08 9:00 AM

Going Through the Motions: Steps to Consider Before Your Notice of Appeal

David Wilson - noemail@haysmcconn.com — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:00:00 GMT

After an adverse verdict or ruling, the thoughts of clients and their counsel naturally turn to the court of appeals and the potential for relief in that forum. Hollywood movies and television will occasionally even show lawyers taking a verbal "notice of appeal" just after the jury verdict is announced. However, in the real world, careful thought should be given to filing a formal notice of appeal.

This is true for two reasons. First, trial courts often let issues which likely should be resolved as a matter of law go to the jury in hopes that the jury will "sort it out". In the logic of many trial judges, it is easier to justify denying relief as a matter of law after both parties have had their "day in court" than via summary judgment or directed verdict. Thus, a post-verdict motion will allow the trial court one last chance to grant relief on issues that could have been disposed of before trial but were not. Certainly, a motion to the trial court is a less time-consuming and less expensive means of prevailing than paying for a record and preparing a brief to the appellate court.

More importantly, however, is that in most jurisdictions, certain (if not all) appellate claims must be presented to the trial court after the verdict or judgment to be preserved for appellate review. For example, most Federal circuit courts have ruled that a party that did not file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (formerly called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict), waives claims of insufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Another important effect of some post-verdict or post-judgment motions is that they extend th deadline in which to file a notice of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(v), a timely motion for new trial tolls the deadline to file a notice of appeal until after an order is entered disposing of the motion. Most state appellate systems also provide that certain post-judgment motions alter the deadline for notice of appeal.

In this regard, care must be taken as to the timing of the motion. Some circuit courts have help that filing a post-judgment motion after the verdict but before the entry of final judgment does not extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal. See e.g. Mosier v. Federal Reserve Bank, 132 F.2d 710, 712 (2d Cir. 1942). The logic of these circuits is that the entry of judgment as a matter of law or motion for new trial. Motions for new trial have another important role, because they are usual vehicles to bring matters to the attention of the trial court (and, eventually, the appellate court) that are outside the record, such as allegations of jury misconduct or newly discovered evidence.

Whether in state or federal court, a party who is considering seeking review of a verdict of judgment should first consult the applicable rules for post-verdict motions. Care should be taken to ascertain the deadline for such motions, as they are often different from the deadline to file a notice of appeal. A party is required be just as vigilante in urging these motions in a timely manner after the trial as it was in making objections during the trial.

16-Nov-07 12:00 PM

FORTUNE 2012 - Top Ranked Law Firms

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 06:00:00 GMT

HAYS MCCONN SHAREHOLDER GAINS STATE AND NATIONAL RECOGNITION

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:00:00 GMT

David V. Wilson II, shareholder with the Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. has been appointed the 2012 Chair of the DRI Construction Law Committee, which consists of approximately 1,200 lawyers across the United States who defend construction litigation. Wilson has served as Vice Chair of the committee for the past two years. DRI is the largest international membership organization of attorneys defending the interests of business and individuals in civil litigation.

In addition, Wilson has been named a Texas Super Lawyer for 2011, as published in Texas Monthly magazine.

Hays, McConn Adds Three New Lawyers

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 05:00:00 GMT

The Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce that Preston Hutson has joined the firm as Of Counsel, while Brianne Watkins and Sara Banks have joined the firm as associates. Mr. Hutson has spent the last 8 years with Kacal, Adams & Law, P.C. His practice areas concern general civil litigation with an emphasis on both personal injury and products liability. He is a fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, and a member of both the Houston and Jefferson County Bar Associations. He is also a member of DRI, the national organization for the civil defense bar.

Brianne Watkins received her Doctorate of Jurisprudence in 2006 from South Texas College of Law where she graduated cum laude. Prior to law school, she graduated cum laude and with University Honors from Texas A&M University in 2002 with a Bachelor’s of Business Administration. During her time in law school, Ms. Watkins participated on two award-winning, varsity moot court teams, was a member of the South Texas Law Review and the Construction Law Journal, and received two American Jurisprudence Awards for excellence in the subjects of Evidence and Corporations. Since graduating from law school, Ms. Watkins has primarily practiced in the area of trial and appellate litigation, and has successfully represented clients in a wide variety of legal matters.

Sara Banks received her Doctorate of Jurisprudence in 2008 from The University of Houston Law Center. Prior to law school, she graduated from Baylor University with a Bachelors of Arts in Psychology. During her time in law school, Ms. Banks participated on two environmental law Moot Court teams, became a Certified Mediator, and is now a current coach for the University of Houston Moot Court team. Since graduating from law school, Ms. Banks has primarily practiced in the area of trial and appellate litigation, admiralty and inland transportation, has argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has successfully represented clients in a wide variety of legal matters.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Elected to Board of Directors of Crime Stoppers of Houston

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:00:00 GMT

David V. Wilson II, shareholder with the Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., was recently elected to the Board of Directors of Crime Stoppers of Houston, a non-profit organization devoted to preventing and solving serious crimes in the Greater Houston area, in partnership with citizens, the media, and the criminal justice system.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce new shareholders.

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:00:00 GMT

The Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce that Michael Gallagher, who has been an associate with the firm since 2004, and Maria Fox, of counsel with the firm since 2008, have been elected shareholders at the firm effective January 1, 2011. Mr. Gallagher graduated from the University of Houston Law Center in 2003. He began his legal career as a law clerk to Judge Richard A. Schell of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. His practice focuses on real estate litigation, professional liability defense, and products liability litigation. Ms. Fox is a 1990 graduate of the Baylor Law School and has been practicing in the area of civil litigation, with a focus on personal injury, wrongful death, premises liability and products liability defense, for the last 21 years.

Michael Gallagher

Maria Fox

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Assumes Helm of American Bar Association Committee

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:00:00 GMT

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Assumes Helm of American Bar Association Committee

David V. Wilson II, shareholder with the Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., was recently appointed Chair of the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section. He also serves as Vice Chair of the DRI Construction Law Committee for 2010.

The Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section is devoted to study and development of advocacy in appellate courts, particularly in cases involving tort and insurance law. The DRI Construction Law Committee consists of over 1,000 attorneys nationwide who practice construction law, and is sponsored by DRI, the leading national organization for civil defense attorneys.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Named to Two Leadership Posts

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:00:00 GMT

David V. Wilson II, shareholder with the Houston law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., has recently been appointed to two national leadership posts. He has been named Chair-elect of the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section. He has also been named Program Chair of the 2009 DRI Construction Law Seminar in San Francisco.

The Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section is devoted to study and development of advocacy in appellate courts, particularly in cases involving tort law and insurance law. The DRI Construction Law Seminar is a national program focusing on construction law, sponsored by DRI, the leading national organization for civil defense attorneys.

Hays McConn Announces New Shareholder

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:00:00 GMT

The Houston-based law firm of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce that Jane Lea Haas, who has been an associate with the firm since 2003, will assume a position as shareholder effective January 1, 2009. Ms. Haas is a 2001 graduate of South Texas College of Law and practices a wide variety of civil litigation, primarily in the area of personal injury and construction defect defense.

Ms. Haas has also been named a member of the Board of Directors of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel ("T.A.D.C.") T.A.D.C. is a statewide professional association of personal injury defense, civil trial, and commercial litigation attorneys.

South Texas College of Law Names New Board Chair Hays McConn Partner Unanimous Choice

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:00:00 GMT

December 8, 2008—Houston attorney and South Texas College of Law graduate Michael S. Hays begins his tenure as Chairman of the law school’s board of directors this month. Hays, a 1974 graduate of South Texas, is the named shareholder of Houston’s Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering where he specializes in professional and products liability, legal ethics, personal injury, and general commercial litigation. “The faculty and staff are thrilled with the choice of Mike Hays as the new board chairman,” says South Texas President and Dean James Alfini. “Mike has consistently and passionately demonstrated his commitment to our law school.” Hays joined the board in April, 2005 and served on the executive committee, audit committee, building and technology committee, and the development committee.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Proudly Announces Its New Houston Location

noemail@haysmcconn.com — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce that its Houston office has relocated to the vibrant Uptown/Galleria area of Houston. The firm’s new address will be 1233 W. Loop South, Ste. 1000, Houston, Texas 77027. This is the first new location for the firm in its more than twenty-five years of operation. The move is effective April 28, 2008.

“As Houston continues to grow and expand, much of its economic and commercial activity has moved west, and it is only natural that legal service providers follow suit,” said David V. Wilson II, shareholder with the firm. While the firm continues its recognized role as a participant in Harris County courtrooms, the move away from downtown underscores the statewide and national focus of the firm. It maintains its other office in Las Vegas, Nevada. The firm’s telephone numbers, telecopier numbers and e-mail addresses remain unchanged.

For questions contact DavidV.WilsonII, 713-752-8360, dwilson@haysmcconn.com.

Recruiting Attorneys

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:40:21 GMT

Recruiting Attorneys

We do not accept resumes for positions not currently listed. If you are qualified for one of our job postings, please submit your resume to: dbaltzell@haysmcconn.com.
Word format only, please. You may also send a hard copy of your resume to:

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering P.C.
ATTN: Human Resources,
1233 West Loop South, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77027

Please have a cover letter indicating the position for which you are applying. No phone calls, please. Thank you for your interest in Hays, McConn, Rice, and Pickering P.C. an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Our Locations

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:33:37 GMT

Located in Houston Texas and Las Vegas Nevada, we have two convenient locations to help serve you. Review the maps below and click to view a google map, a yahoo map or find your way to us with Mapquest. Hays McConn Rice & Pickering Houston Office 1233 West Loop South Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 (mapquest) Ph: (713) 654-1111 Fx: (713) 650-0027 Click here for a Google map to Hays McConn Click here for a Yahoo map to Hays McConn Hays McConn Rice & Pickering Las Vegas Office 8275 S. Eastern Avenue Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 (mapquest) Ph: (702) 990-8414 Fx: (702) 990-8681 Click here for a Google map to Hays McConn Click here for a Yahoo map to Hays McConn

Our Fully Integrated In-house Litigation Software

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:18:34 GMT

Litigation support software can really shine during presentations especially when critical decisions and changes are made on-the-fly. Hays McConn has in-house staff with the ability and experience to run various professional software programs that give an edge during trials or mediations. Using the technology of high-powered litigation support software, we will work hard to go above and beyond the desired results of our clients.

Paralegals

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:32:08 GMT

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering P.C.
ATTN: Human Resources,
1233 West Loop South, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77027

Trial and Case Outcomes

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:21:38 GMT

Man Roland, Inc. v. Kreitz Motor Express, Inc., et al.; In the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff sued several entities alleging their negligence under the Carmack Amendment in shipping a printing press from the Port of Houston to Lubbock, Texas. The press, valued at over $1 million, was damaged during transport due to inclement weather. Plaintiff settled with the two other defendants and sought the majority of its damages from the Hays, McConn client. The court granted summary judgment based on the argument that the plaintiff was negligent because it gave specific directions on how the printing press was to be shipped. The court also dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against the client. Handled by Shannon R. Ramirez. Sidebar: Plaintiff's counsel indicated that, while he believed the case would be reversed on appeal, he did not know if his client would appeal because they will not be entitled to recover attorney's fees. He also told Ms. Ramirez during settlement...

Administrative

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:08:51 GMT

Administrative

We do not accept resumes for positions not currently listed:

If you are qualified for one of our job postings, please submit your resume to: dbaltzell@haysmcconn.com. Word format only, please. You may send a hard copy of your resume to:

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering P.C.
ATTN: Human Resources
1233 West Loop South, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77027

Please have a cover letter indicating the position for which you are applying. No phone calls, please. Thank you for your interest in Hays, McConn, Rice, and Pickering P.C. an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Firm Practice and Philosophy

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:07:55 GMT

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering was founded in 1982. The firm's practice is focused on personal injury and general civil trial work for insurers and corporate clients.

The firm handles a wide variety of litigation including professional liability, legal malpractice defense, premises liability, premises security, construction disputes, automobile liability, homeowner's liability, property damage litigation, toxic torts, maritime, products liability, dram shop, and ERISA litigation.

The firm also actively represents insurance companies in coverage matters and bad faith litigation. While 70% to 80% of the firm's practice is related to trial work, the firm also has expertise in general commercial matters, including ERISA, banking, probate, real estate, and general corporate matters.

The firm's philosophy is simple: Its success is measured by the client's and their insurer's success in accomplishing their goals and objectives. We believe in defining litigation successes the way our clients want them defined because we are interested in long term client relationships.

The firm achieves this end by working in unison with the claims professionals and clients in handling and resolving legal matters. We strongly believe that the key to our success is through repeat business and by referrals of new clients from existing clients. Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering is dedicated to providing high quality legal services, while being cost sensitive in delivering those services for the clients and their insurers.

Results achieved necessarily depend upon the facts of each individual case. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as every matter is different. Similar results may not be obtained in your matter.

Hays McConn In The News

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:22:25 GMT

Please click a link below to read our latest news and articles that we have written.

Rotator Images and XML

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:36:49 GMT

To add new images, simply use the upload icon and use the same file name with a different image.

You will need to update the jpgrotator.xml file that controls the images that appear in the rotator.

Right click and choose "Save Target As" to download jpgrotator.xml, make your edits and re-upload to this page.

Quality Cost Effective Representation

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:03:30 GMT

Quality will be insured by our team approach to your litigation, and we will not substitute lawyers without consultation with you. Your interests and those of your operating companies must be handled ethically and meet the highest standard so that no question may arise which would adversely affect your interest. We will work with your in-house counsel or litigation managers to develop strategies to provide the most effective legal services to the operating companies at reasonable cost. We will partner with in-house lawyers and paralegals to manage cases and develop standardized procedures for case development to eliminate unnecessary actions. We will provide case and litigation management to ensure that your interests are being addressed on a timely basis. We will assign attorneys commensurate with the difficulty of the task and the seriousness of the case involved, to ensure that value is given and cost efficiency is achieved in the legal representation...

Hays McConn RSS Feed

FORTUNE 2012 - Top Ranked Law Firms

And The Defense Wins

Fresh Coat and Products Claims in Construction Defect Litigation

Hays McConn: Official Sponsor of Cristo Rey Jesuit

Saving The Past

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Honored for Its Service Efforts

And The Defense Wins

Texas Lets Insurers Cover Punitive Damages

Employee Emails Not Protected

Going Through the Motions: Steps to Consider Before Your Notice of Appeal

FORTUNE 2012 - Top Ranked Law Firms

HAYS MCCONN SHAREHOLDER GAINS STATE AND NATIONAL RECOGNITION

Hays, McConn Adds Three New Lawyers

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Elected to Board of Directors of Crime Stoppers of Houston

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. is pleased to announce new shareholders.

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Assumes Helm of American Bar Association Committee

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Shareholder Named to Two Leadership Posts

Hays McConn Announces New Shareholder

South Texas College of Law Names New Board Chair Hays McConn Partner Unanimous Choice

Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C. Proudly Announces Its New Houston Location

Recruiting Attorneys

Our Locations

Our Fully Integrated In-house Litigation Software

Paralegals

Trial and Case Outcomes

Administrative

Firm Practice and Philosophy

Results achieved necessarily depend upon the facts of each individual case. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as every matter is different. Similar results may not be obtained in your matter.

Hays McConn In The News

Articles

News

***Rotator Images and XML***

Quality Cost Effective Representation

Rotator Images and XML