Texas Supreme Court Maintains Hard Line In Favor of Defendants

11th Annual Review Shows Record Breaking Bias Against Consumers

PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release September 16, 2008

AUSTIN – Court Watch, a project of the Texas Watch Foundation, released areview of the decisions of the Texas Supreme Court covering the 2006-07 term. The report finds a record-breaking pro-defendant bias and includes a list of the most anti-consumer decisions handed down by the Texas Supreme Court. This year’s list, known as the “Dirty Dozen,” was expanded from ten to twelve because of the high volume of opinions detrimental to consumers, seniors, patients, and policyholders.

This is Court Watch's eleventh annual review of the Texas Supreme Court. Over that time, Court Watch has highlighted the Court’s pro-defendant bias by conducting a statistical examination of the Court, as well as discussing significant legal trends that effect Texas families. Over the eleven year history of the Court Watch project, the Court has consistently demonstrated a pro-defendant penchant; however, during the 2006-07 term, consumers prevailed just 14% of the time – a new low.

"The Court's clear bias against consumers has reached a critical mass," said Alex Winslow, Executive Director of the Texas Watch Foundation, which produces the Court Watch report. "No longer does the Court even pretend to be balanced in its decision-making. Insurance companies, polluters, and other wrongdoers know that they will likely be bailed out by the Texas Supreme Court."

Some of the key findings in this year’s report include the following:

Statistical Analysis

• Consumer Loss: Paltry 14% consumer win rate
• Consumer Scorecard: All 9 Justices receive an “F.” No Justice has even a 40% pro-consumer voting record
• Historical Trends: Highest ever defendant win rate, 84%
• Anti-jury Bias: 72% of consumer cases decided by juries were overturned

Analysis of Legal Trends

• Expanding protections for property owners responsible for injury
• Limiting accountability for local governments who breach private contracts
• Expanding protections for employers
• Limiting the jurisdiction of Texas courts
• Bailing out insurers by limiting options for policyholders