pjc-oil-and-gas-2022-lib

PJC 313.19

D AMAGES

County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233–34 (Tex. 2002) (broad-form submission of multi ple elements of damages may lead to harmful error if there is a proper objection rais ing insufficiency of the evidence to support one or more of the elements submitted); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.008(a) (“In an action in which a claimant seeks recovery of damages, the trier of fact shall determine the amount of economic damages separately from the amount of other compensatory damages.”). Separating economic from noneconomic damages is required to allow the court to apply the limits on recovery of exemplary damages based on economic and noneconomic damages as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008(b). Further, “[p]rejudgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of future damages.” Tex. Fin. Code § 304.1045 (wrongful death, personal injury, or prop erty damage cases). Therefore, separation of past and future damages is required. Elements considered separately. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 770 (Tex. 2002), provides an instruction for cases involving undefined or potentially overlapping categories of damages. In those cases, the following language should be substituted for the instruction to consider each element separately: Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other. You shall not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss. That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any. Prejudgment interest. Instructing the jury not to add interest is suggested because prejudgment interest, if recoverable, will be calculated by the court at the time of judgment. If interest paid on an obligation is claimed as an element of damages, it may be necessary to modify the instruction on interest. Exemplary damages. The non-executive may recover exemplary damages from the executive rights holder. Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. 1984); Luecke v. Wallace , 951 S.W.2d 267, 276 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ); Dearing, Inc. v. Spiller , 824 S.W.2d 728, 734 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied); Mims v. Beall , 810 S.W.2d 876, 881 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, no writ). Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code has supplanted the common law and now controls the evidentiary standard for an award of exemplary damages. For discussion of appropriate questions and instructions for exemplary damages, see the current edi tion of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Business, Consumer, Insur ance & Employment PJC 115.37. Equitable remedies. Equitable remedies for breach of the executive duty are awardable by the trial court. See, e.g., Manges , 673 S.W.2d at 184 (affirmed trial court judgment canceling oil and gas lease and deed of trust); Lesley v. Veterans Land Board , 352 S.W.3d 479, 491 (Tex. 2011) (“pre-approving” remedy of cancellation of restrictive covenants upon remand to trial court).

252