Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 2, 2023.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

United Healthcare of Tex., Inc. v. Low-T Physicians Serv., P.L.L.C., No. 02-22-00170-CV (Jan. 5, 2023) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Wallach and Walker, JJ.).

Held:  In this accord and satisfaction case under Section 3.311 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, there was factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that, “within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated,” Appellants “knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.”  Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 3.311(d).  Appellants were organizations, so under Section 1.202 of the Business and Commerce Code, they had knowledge “from the time it would have been brought to the . . . attention [of the individual conducting the transaction] if the organization had exercised due diligence.”  Id. § 1.202(f).  The evidence supported a finding that, had Appellants exercised due diligence, Appellees’ tendering of the check would have been brought to the attention of the individual (or individuals) conducting and directly responsible for the transaction multiple days before the check was received or cashed.  And because this due diligence provision applied, Appellants could not rely on either of Section 3.311’s two exceptions to accord and satisfaction.  Id. § 3.311(c), (d).