Opinion

Larry Adkins, Personal Representative of the Estate of Newbern Brown Adkins v. Lincoln Electric Company

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Apr 9, 2019
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.4%

The opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Appellate case names: Larry Adkins, Personal Representative of the Estate of

Newbern Brown Adkins, et al. v. Lincoln Electric Co., et al.;

Dorothy Wilson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Arlie Richard Able, et al. v. Lincoln Electric Co., et al.

Appellate case numbers: 01-18-01064-CV & 01-18-01071-CV

Trial court case numbers: 2017-67350-A & 2017-67246-A

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

On March 7, 2019, appellants in the first case, 01-18-01064-CV, Larry Adkins,

Personal Representative of the Estate of Newbern Brown Adkins, et al. (“Adkins

Appellants”), and the appellants in the second case, 01-18-01071-CV, Dorothy Wilson, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of Arlie Richard Able, et al. (“Wilson Appellants”),

filed a “Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Nationwide Mutual

Insurance Company.” Appellants contend that the notices of appearance filed by

Nationwide Mutual should be stricken because, although it claimed an interest based on its

affiliation with Nationwide Indemnity, the Nationwide entity named in the petitions,

Nationwide Mutual was not a defendant and did not intervene in the severed cases below.

On March 14, 2019, Nationwide Mutual filed responses in opposition and motions

to intervene as an appellee under the equitable virtual-representation doctrine in both cases.

See Motor Vehicle Bd. of Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers, 1 S.W.3d

108, 110 (Tex. 1999). On March 18, 2019, appellants filed a response in opposition,

contending that the virtual-representation doctrine only applies to prospective appellants,

not prospective appellees. See State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. 2015).

Accordingly, because Nationwide Indemnity is not a defendant in the severed cases

on appeal, Nationwide Mutual did not intervene in the trial court, and the virtual-

representation doctrine only applies to prospective appellants, not prospective appellees,

the Court DENIES Nationwide Mutual’s motions to intervene as appellee and GRANTS

the appellants’ motions to strike in both cases. See Naylor, 466 S.W.3d at 787.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_____

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___April 9, 2019_____

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.