Texas made a targeted amendment to one of its key products liability statutes governing the rental and leasing of motor vehicles. The Texas Legislature recently amended Section 82.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a statute that significantly limits the exposure of vehicle lessors and rental companies in failure-to-retrofit claims. The statute helps protect commercial vehicle lessors from being required to adopt the newest technology time and time again.
A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court reinforces a demanding evidentiary standard in premises liability cases and reminds plaintiffs that circumstantial evidence of a hazard’s cause is not the same as evidence of its duration. In H-E-B, LP v. Marissa Peterson, the Texas Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who bring premises liability claims based on constructive knowledge must produce “evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient duration before the time and place of the injury for a premises owner to have discovered it.”1
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.
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).