Texas

Personal injury claims must be filed within two years of accrual under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. This two-year period applies broadly to negligence-based tort claims, intentional tort claims resulting in personal injury, and most categories of bodily harm. Wrongful death and property damage claims also follow the two-year period under § 16.003, providing consistency across most tort categories and avoiding the PI/wrongful death mismatch found in New York.

Medical malpractice operates under a distinctive framework at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.251: two years from the breach or tort that gave rise to the claim, with a ten-year outside maximum (statute of repose). The ten-year repose period is one of the longer outer caps in the catalog, providing more time for latent medical malpractice claims than the three-year (CO), four-year (IL), or five-year (GA) repose frameworks in other service area states.

Both written and oral contract claims must be filed within four years of breach under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004. Texas applies the same four-year period to written and oral contracts, unlike states (such as Illinois with its ten-year written / five-year oral split or California with its four-year written / two-year oral split) that distinguish between the two. UCC sale-of-goods claims also follow a four-year period from breach under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.725.

Fraud claims must be filed within four years of accrual under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.051 (the residual default period), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The four-year fraud period parallels the contract periods and provides a unified four-year framework for most non-tort commercial claims.

Defamation (libel and slander) must be filed within one year under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.002. This shortened period requires accelerated intake for defamation matters, parallel to similar one-year periods in New York, California, DC, Georgia, Illinois, and Colorado. The shortened defamation period combined with the broader anti-SLAPP framework under the TCPA creates significant procedural risk for speech-related claims in Texas.

Texas Tort Claims Act notice requirements under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 (covered separately) impose additional procedural deadlines that operate alongside these SOL periods when governmental unit defendants are involved. The six-month TCA notice deadline operates independently of the SOL framework and can bar the claim even when the underlying SOL period remains open.

Texas applies a modified comparative fault framework under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 33 (the "Proportionate Responsibility" framework). A plaintiff whose responsibility is greater than 50 percent is barred from recovery under § 33.001. A plaintiff whose responsibility is 50 percent or less recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 51-percent bar framework parallels New York's, Illinois's, Pennsylvania's, Connecticut's, Massachusetts's, Oklahoma's, Nevada's, and Oregon's frameworks.

Chapter 33's comprehensive scheme applies to most tort claims and certain breach of warranty claims. The framework was significantly revised by the 2003 House Bill 4 tort reform legislation, which restructured Texas's comparative responsibility framework, introduced the responsible third party mechanism, and limited recovery against deep-pocket defendants who bear only minor responsibility for an injury.

Texas's several liability framework under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013(a) imposes several-only liability on most tort defendants. Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that defendant's fault. There is no joint liability for damages allocated to other tortfeasors in most tort categories.

Joint and several liability is preserved under § 33.013(b) when a defendant's percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent. A defendant found more than 50 percent at fault remains jointly and severally liable for all damages. This 51-percent threshold for joint liability is distinct from the 51-percent bar that controls plaintiff recovery: both rules use the 50/51 percent dividing line but for different purposes (plaintiff bar vs. defendant joint liability threshold).

Texas's responsible third party (RTP) designation framework under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004 allows a defendant to designate non-parties as "responsible third parties" for purposes of fault allocation at trial. The designation must be filed within statutory deadlines (generally 60 days before the original trial date with extensions available for good cause). Once an RTP is properly designated, the trier of fact may allocate fault to the RTP even though the RTP is not a party to the case.

The RTP framework is functionally similar to Georgia's non-party apportionment under OCGA § 51-12-33 but with different procedural mechanics. One operationally important feature: if a defendant designates an RTP within the statutory window, the plaintiff cannot add the RTP as a party after the SOL has expired, even when the discovery of the RTP's identity came late. This creates strategic timing considerations around RTP designation and SOL management.

Several categories of claims preserve joint and several liability regardless of fault percentage thresholds. These include intentional torts, certain types of toxic tort claims, and specific statutory frameworks. The 51-percent threshold for joint liability under § 33.013(b) is the primary rule, but practitioners must verify whether their specific claim falls into a preserved-joint-liability category before assuming several-only liability applies.

The Texas Tort Claims Act under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 101 governs tort claims against the State of Texas, state agencies, political subdivisions, and other governmental units. Section 101.101 requires written notice of the claim to the governmental unit within six months of the date of the incident giving rise to the claim. The six-month period is comparable to California's Government Claims Act notice, Georgia's municipal Ante Litem Notice, and DC's § 12-309 notice, but distinct from the shorter periods in New Mexico (90 days), Colorado (182 days), and New York (90 days).

The notice must describe the damage or injury claimed, the time and place of the incident, and the incident itself. Notice must be provided to the appropriate governmental unit official (typically the unit's risk management department or designated claims officer). Without timely written notice, no claim can be brought against the governmental unit regardless of the underlying merits of the case.

The § 101.101 notice content requirements are statutory. Texas courts apply strict construction to these requirements, holding that substantial compliance is generally insufficient if material information is missing or vague. Failure to provide timely written notice with adequate content bars the claim regardless of the underlying merits.

The strict construction principle in Texas parallels the approaches in DC (§ 12-309), Colorado (CGIA), Georgia (Ante Litem), California (Government Claims Act), and New Mexico (TCA). The Texas framework provides one of the longer notice windows (six months) but applies content requirements with the same strict construction approach found in shorter-notice jurisdictions.

The six-month notice requirement applies to all tort claims against governmental units except where specific statutory exceptions apply. Section 101.101(c) provides an exception: notice is not required when the governmental unit has actual notice of the death, injury, or property damage and has had an opportunity to investigate. Courts have construed this exception narrowly, and reliance on the actual-notice exception requires specific evidence of the unit's contemporaneous knowledge of the underlying incident.

The § 101.101 notice requirement operates as a condition precedent to suit. Missing the six-month deadline bars the claim independently of the SOL period under § 16.003. Some governmental units have shorter notice periods established by their charters or local ordinances, which may impose additional procedural deadlines beyond the statutory six-month period. Practitioners should verify charter and ordinance requirements at intake for any matter involving a Texas governmental defendant.

Texas's Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) is codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 27. The statute provides for an early dispositive motion (motion to dismiss) for actions that arise from the moving party's exercise of free speech, right to petition, or right of association. The TCPA was originally enacted in 2011 with very broad scope and significantly narrowed by 2019 amendments (House Bill 2730) that limited its application to defined categories of protected activity.

The 2019 amendments narrowed TCPA coverage to focus on communications about matters of public concern, communications in or about a governmental proceeding, and communications about the exercise of free speech rights. The pre-2019 version had been criticized for sweeping in broad categories of commercial disputes, employment matters, and family law claims that arguably had little to do with citizen participation in public debate. The narrowed scope remains operationally significant but is more focused on traditional anti-SLAPP categories.

The TCPA motion must be filed within 60 days of service of the legal action. The court conducts a two-step analysis. At step one, the moving party (defendant) bears the burden of showing that the legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party's exercise of the protected rights. At step two, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party (plaintiff) to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim.

If the moving party satisfies step one but the nonmoving party satisfies step two, the moving party may then establish an affirmative defense or other grounds entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. The two-step structure resembles California's anti-SLAPP framework under CCP § 425.16 but with different burden allocations, evidentiary requirements (Texas requires "clear and specific evidence" rather than California's "probability of prevailing"), and timing nuances.

Filing the TCPA motion triggers an automatic discovery stay under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(c). The court may permit specified discovery on motion for good cause, but the default is no discovery during motion pendency. The stay shifts the litigation timeline substantially toward early dispositive resolution.

Fee-shifting under § 27.009 is mandatory on grant: a prevailing moving party is entitled to recover court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action. The court must also impose sanctions sufficient to deter the nonmoving party from bringing similar actions. A prevailing nonmoving party is entitled to attorney's fees only if the court finds the motion was frivolous or solely intended to delay. The asymmetry strongly incentivizes early dispositive motions and discourages plaintiffs from pursuing weak speech-related claims.

The narrowed 2019 scope identifies three categories of protected communications: communications made in connection with a matter of public concern (defined in § 27.001(7)); communications in or pertaining to a judicial proceeding, official proceeding, or other governmental forum (§ 27.001(8)); and communications in furtherance of the exercise of constitutional rights of free speech and association in connection with a public concern (§ 27.001(4)). The narrowed definitions exclude many commercial disputes that the pre-2019 version had swept in, making early scope analysis a key determination in TCPA practice.

Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542A, enacted by House Bill 1774 in 2017 (often called the "Hailstorm Bill"), establishes a procedural overlay for first-party property insurance claims involving forces of nature. The framework applies to claims arising from hail, windstorm, wildfire, water damage, and similar natural causes. The Chapter modifies the prior Texas insurance bad faith framework for the property insurance context by imposing pre-suit notice requirements, capping attorney's fee recoveries, and limiting other plaintiff-favorable provisions of the general insurance code.

Chapter 542A applies to first-party property insurance claims where the plaintiff is the insured or assignee of the insured. The framework is layered on top of the general first-party insurance code provisions (including Tex. Ins. Code Ch. 541 unfair claims practices and Ch. 542 prompt payment), creating a specialized procedural regime for property insurance disputes involving covered weather events and natural causes.

Section 542A.003 requires the insured to provide written notice to the insurer at least 60 days before filing suit. The notice must describe the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim, specify the amount of actual damages and any other amounts claimed, and identify any attorney's fees and expenses incurred. The 60-day pre-suit notice period allows the insurer to investigate and potentially resolve the claim before litigation.

Section 542A.003(d) requires that the insurer's response include a written statement of the actual damages it agrees to pay and an explanation of any amounts disputed. The pre-suit notice and response framework operates as a procedural condition for the plaintiff to pursue full Chapter 541 and § 542A remedies, including the attorney's fees and statutory damages provisions of those frameworks.

Section 542A.007 limits attorney's fee recoveries when the insured's pre-suit notice undervalued the claim or the jury verdict comes in materially below the demand. The fee-limit framework operates as a cap calculated based on the difference between the amount tendered by the insurer and the amount ultimately recovered. The limitation provisions discourage inflated demands and incentivize realistic pre-suit valuation by insured counsel.

The Chapter 542A framework also limits the assignability of certain claims and imposes specific requirements on insurance assignments (often called "AOB" or assignment of benefits). These provisions were partly designed to address Texas-specific concerns about restoration contractors taking AOBs from policyholders and pursuing inflated insurance claims independent of the insured.

For insurance recovery practitioners, Chapter 542A requires careful pre-suit planning: claim valuation, notice content, supporting documentation, and timing all affect the framework's procedural and substantive outcomes. The 60-day notice period is operationally meaningful (different from a SOL or notice-of-claim deadline) and the attorney's fees calculation creates significant case-management implications throughout the matter.

Practitioners moving from non-Chapter 542A insurance frameworks (such as California's first-party bad faith under Egan and Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03) should adjust their case development assumptions to account for the Texas pre-suit notice requirements, fee-cap calculations, and assignment limitations. The Chapter 542A framework represents one of the more substantial state-level insurance practice frameworks in the firm's service area set.

Texas maintains separate civil and criminal high courts: the Texas Supreme Court hears civil appeals only, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears criminal appeals only. Both courts are based in Austin, both have nine members elected to staggered six-year terms, and both function as final appellate authorities within their subject-matter jurisdiction. Only two states in the United States maintain this bifurcated high court structure: Texas and Oklahoma.

The bifurcated structure traces to the Texas Constitution of 1876 and reflects a deliberate policy decision to separate the development of civil and criminal law at the apex of the state court system. The structure has remained substantially unchanged since the original constitution and continues to define Texas appellate practice. Each court has developed its own jurisprudence, procedural rules, and institutional culture distinct from the other.

For practitioners, the bifurcated structure has significant operational implications. Civil appeals from the courts of appeals route exclusively to the Texas Supreme Court. The Court accepts petitions for review at its discretion, with detailed petition-for-review practice. The Court's docket emphasizes commercial litigation, constitutional questions, statutory interpretation, and significant tort cases.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handles criminal appeals exclusively, including post-conviction matters and death penalty cases. Civil practitioners encounter the Court of Criminal Appeals only in matters with criminal-civil overlap, such as criminal forfeiture matters or civil rights matters arising from criminal conduct. The institutional separation means civil practitioners typically do not need to be familiar with Court of Criminal Appeals procedure.

Oklahoma maintains the parallel bifurcated structure with the Oklahoma Supreme Court (civil) and Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (criminal). The two states share the bifurcated framework but with some structural differences. The parallel between Texas and Oklahoma is one of the catalog's distinctive court-structure features, alongside Tennessee's Circuit/Chancery dual trial court system, Pennsylvania's Superior Court/Commonwealth Court dual intermediate appellate system, and Louisiana's civilian law system.

The bifurcated structure does not affect federal court appeals (which route through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for matters arising in federal courts in Texas). The structure is exclusively a state court phenomenon. Practitioners with multi-jurisdictional practice should remain alert to the structural distinction when comparing Texas appellate strategy to states with unified high court systems.