Texas Supreme Court Declares a Provision of House Bill 4 Unconstitutional
Last week in Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal the Texas Supreme Court provided an in depth analysis of the constitutionality of retroactive laws and held that the “innocent successor” limit on liability for asbestos-related personal-injury claims included in House Bill 4 is an unconstitutional retroactive law. The Supreme Court concluded that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 149, which the Legislature enacted as part of the 2003 tort reforms “significantly impacts a substantial interest” that Robinson had in a “well-recognized common law cause of action” for asbestos claims.
The Court also concluded that “the public interest served by Chapter 149 is slight,” rejecting the 14th Court of Appeals' holding that the purpose for which the statute was enacted is a valid exercise of the Legislature’s police power. In the opinion the Court compares this case to other analogous opinions which established that the constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws “protects settled expectations that rules are to govern the play and not simply the score, and prevents the abuses of legislative power that arise when individuals or groups are singled out for special reward or punishment.” The Supreme Court cited three factors to be considered in determining whether a statute violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws: 1) the nature and strength of the public interest the statute serves as evidenced by the Legislature’s factual findings; 2) the nature of the prior right that the statute impairs; and 3) the extent of the impairment of that right.
In a dissenting opinion Justice Wainwright wrote, “The Court’s new balancing test reaches the wrong result” and ignores an important principle. Justice Wainwright goes on to state that “[t]he constitutional retroactivity doctrine does not protect an asserted entitlement to property one does not own, and until a final judgment in the case, we do not know whether a claim will be vindicated or refuted.”
