IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Javier E. De La Garza, and Javier E. De La Garza, M.D., P.A., Respondents
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing, Dr. De La Garza complains that our opinion fails to address his alternative theory of recovery based on fraud. Under this theory, De La Garza contends that the hospital’s representation that it would contribute $200,000 to settle his claim fraudulently induced him to make a written Stowers demand on the hospital’s insurer to settle for policy limits. He further submits that his judgment against the hospital for $200,000 is fully supported by the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on fraud. Thus, De La Garza concludes that, even if the hospital’s oral agreement to contribute to the settlement cannot be enforced, he is nevertheless entitled to the benefit of this bargain under the alternative theory. We disagree.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is
essentially a “statute of frauds” for settlement agreements. See 7 William V. Dorsaneo
Dr. De La Garza’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion delivered: December 14, 2007