 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Frozen Food Express Industries12/14/1999
s but rather integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose, each constituent corporation may be held liable for debts incurred in pursuit of that business purpose." See Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Taylor Rental Ctr., 712 S.W.2d at 536; see also Beneficial Personnel Servs. of Texas, Inc. v. Rey, 927 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tex. App._El Paso 1996), writ granted, judgm't vacated w.r.m., 938 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1997) (the single business enterprise is a "theory for imposing liability where two or more business entities act as one"); Old Republic Ins. Co. v. EX-IM Servs., 920 S.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Tex. App._Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (joint and several liability imposed on all of the business entities engaged in single business enterprise in the amount of the default judgment rendered against one of the businesses). Thus, to the extent the single business enterprise doctrine has been recognized in Texas, we find it is a means of imposing joint and several liability on related corporations, and not a method of obtaining jurisdiction.
Frozen Food Express, Inc. remained in the lawsuit throughout trial and, for reasons not apparent from the record, was released in the final judgment. Because we hold, as a matter of law, that Grippe's cause of action against Transportation and Industries is barred by the statute of limitations, there is no remaining defendant against whom Grippe has a judgment. Cf. Fontenot Petro-Chem & Marine Servs., Inc. v. LaBono, 993 S.W.2d 455, 460 (Tex. App._Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied, reh'g filed) (unnecessary to address single business enterprise finding when one of entities was properly entitled to reversal on statute of limitations grounds); Computize, Inc. v. NHS Communications Group, 992 S.W.2d 608, 614 (Tex. App._Texarkana 1999, no pet. h.) (single business enterprise stipulation had no effect as to entities who were not parties to the stipulation).
In conclusion, we hold Grippe's counsel failed to exercise due diligence in procuring service of citation on appellants Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and Frozen Food Transportation Services, Inc., and his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we sustain appellants' first point of error. Because of our disposition on this point, we need not address appellants' remaining points of error.
Turning to Grippe's cross-point, he complains the trial court erred in not granting his motion to correct and reform the judgment so as to be against "FFE Transportation Services, Inc.," the correct name of "Frozen Food Transportation Services, Inc." Because the trial court had no jurisdiction over Frozen Food Transportation Services, Inc., this point becomes moot. We overrule Grippe's single point of error.
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that Grippe take nothing in his suit.
TOM JAMES, JUSTICE
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 990018F.U05
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|