It has been said that legal issues of an admiralty and maritime nature have a certain “saltiness” about them. At first glance, the Texas Supreme Court’s July 1 decision in Haygood v. de Escabedo has little in the way of salty flavor, as it is an appeal of a car wreck case. Admiralty practitioners should be cognizant of this opinion, however, as it has far-reaching impact upon admiralty personal-injury cases filed in Texas state courts.
Haygood finally gives guidance on a provision of the 2003 tort reform package that has caused significant consternation and disagreement in trial and appellate courts across Texas — §41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, commonly known as the “paid vs. incurred” statute. Haygood reaffirms the plain language of §41.0105 that a claimant’s recovery of medical expenses is limited to those that have been or must be paid by or for the claimant, but also resolves how §41.0105 is applied at trial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
