Photo of Brenda Phelps

Brenda Phelps

With a background in motor vehicle cases, Brenda cut her teeth on insurance defense matters, representing several major national insurance companies at the beginning of her career. She also represented national retailers in premises liability and workers’ compensation cases and is well-versed in working with Fortune 500 companies.

Contact:Read more about Brenda Phelps

Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), codified at Section 23.303 of the Texas Government Code, requires Texas courts to follow a strict schedule for hearings and rulings on motions for summary judgment. Effective September 1, 2025, SB 293 aims to streamline judicial efficiency and provide Texas litigants with more predictability. Relatedly, Texas House Bill 16 (HB 16), effective December 4, 2025, modifies the timelines for judicial action initially set by SB 293 in two ways:

1) by increasing the time courts have to consider motions for summary judgment from 45 days after the motion is filed to 60 days; and

2) by allowing courts up to 90 days after a summary judgment motion is filed to consider it, but only under very limited circumstances. Motions for summary judgment filed between September 1, 2025 and December 3, 2025 are subject to the deadlines originally introduced by SB 293.

T

The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.”  Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).

In October 2023, a New York medical doctor sat down for a fateful meal with her husband and her mother-in-law at a Florida restaurant owned by the adjacent theme park.[1] The doctor, who suffered from severe nut and dairy allergies, received numerous confirmations from restaurant staff that the food she ordered complied with her dietary restrictions.[2] Before selecting the restaurant, she relied on statements made on the theme park company’s website that the restaurant offered allergen-free foods.[3] After dinner, while perusing nearby shops by herself and away from her family, the doctor suffered a severe allergic reaction.[4] She self-administered an epi-pen and was rushed to the hospital but died as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.[5]

The United States Supreme Court building

On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) unanimously held that when a district court finds that when a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) compels the court to issue a stay and the court does not have discretion to dismiss the action.  Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (May 16, 2024) (citing 9 U. S. C. §3).