Lone Star Engine Installation Ctr., Inc. v. Gonzales

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Justice Fillmore
• Decision Date: 11 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 05-14-01616-CV,05-14-01616-CV
• Citation: Lone Star Engine Installation Ctr., Inc. v. Gonzales, No. 05-14-01616-CV (Tex. App. May 11, 2016)
• Parties: LONE STAR ENGINE INSTALLATION CENTER, INC. AND RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Appellants v. BRENDA GONZALES AND GONZALO GONZALES, Appellees

LONE STAR ENGINE INSTALLATION CENTER, INC. AND RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Appellants v. BRENDA GONZALES AND GONZALO GONZALES, Appellees

No. 05-14-01616-CV

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

May 11, 2016

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-15035

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Appellees Brenda and Gonzalo Gonzales sued appellants Lone Star Engine Installation Center, Inc. (Lone Star) and Rafael Sanchez,¹ alleging, as relevant to this appeal,² that appellants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), see TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.41-.63 (West 2011 & Supp. 2015), in connection with repairs appellants made to appellees' 2006 Ford F-350 pickup truck. The trial court found appellants intentionally engaged in conduct that violated the DTPA and awarded appellees economic and mental anguish damages, additional economic and mental anguish damages under section 17.50(b) of the DTPA,and attorney's fees. In ten issues, appellants contend the trial court's judgment should be reversed because appellees are judicially estopped from bringing their claims against appellants, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings that appellants violated the DTPA, and the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, and the trial court erred by allowing two experts to testify for appellees and allowing one of the experts to use certain demonstrative exhibits. We affirm the trial court's judgment, conditioned on appellees' agreement to remit a portion of the damages they were awarded.

Background

Appellees filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on December 2, 2009. In connection with the filing, appellees signed several sworn schedules under oath. These schedules reflected outstanding creditor claims totaling $102,572.35 and that appellees had no contingent or liquidated claims. Appellees also swore they were not parties to any "suits and administrative proceedings." On April 20, 2010, the bankruptcy court confirmed appellees' March 2, 2010 amended bankruptcy plan.³ Pursuant to the confirmation order, appellees were required to make sixty monthly payments to the Chapter 13 trustee of varying amounts totaling $49,212.00.

At some point, Gonzalo noticed appellees' Ford F-350 pickup truck, the family's main vehicle, was overheating, "smoking a little bit," and did not have towing power. Neither Gonzalo nor Brenda knew what was wrong with the truck, and Gonzalo contacted Sanchez about repairing it. On June 23, 2010, a tow truck provided by appellants towed the truck to Lone Star. Gonzalo testified he told Sanchez about the problems with the truck. According to Brenda, after Sanchez examined the truck, he told appellees that it needed a new "long block."⁴ Sancheztestified no one working at Lone Star told appellees the truck needed a new "long block." Rather, the truck was not working when it was towed into the shop, and Gonzalo, without telling anybody at Lone Star that the truck was overheating, requested a "long block" be installed in the truck. Sanchez told Gonzalo it would cost $3,800 to repair the truck, and Gonzalo agreed to have the work done.⁵

Sanchez, a master mechanic, performed eighty percent of the work on the truck. He installed the long block, a rebuilt radiator, a reconditioned "turbo," and two injectors. After Sanchez worked on the truck, he told appellees the actual cost of the repairs was $6,161. Appellees paid the charges, and appellants provided a six month warranty on the work done on the truck. The warranty stated it was void if appellees allowed anyone other than Lone Star to work on the truck. Brenda testified that, when they arrived at Lone Star to pick up the truck, it would not start and was "boosted" in order to get it started. According to Sanchez, the truck was working perfectly and no jump start was required.

Brenda drove the truck to appellees' home. During the drive, Brenda noticed the truck was overheating. The next morning, the truck would not start, and appellees saw that one of the batteries in the truck was not the correct size and was not the battery that had been in the truck when it was towed to Lone Star. Brenda also noticed "a lot of wires and stuff" were attached, the radio no longer worked, the floor mats were gone, and the carpet had been moved. Gonzalo returned the truck to Lone Star and complained that the original battery was missing. When the original battery could not be found, Sanchez paid Gonzalo compensation.

Appellees continued to have problems with the truck overheating and not having any towing power. However, they did not take the truck back to appellants because they did not havethe money for additional repairs. Because the truck was not working properly, appellees used Brenda's small car and a pickup truck they borrowed from a neighbor for transportation.

At some point in 2011, Gonzalo took the truck to Farmer's Diesel & Performance (FD&P) and told Michael Farmer, the diesel mechanic who owns FD&P, that he had concerns about the overhaul that had been done by Lone Star on the engine of the truck. Farmer determined from an inspection of the truck that the auxiliary component's wiring had been disturbed and there was an audible noise, similar to "two pipe hands being slapped together." Farmer told Gonzalo that he thought there was an external head gasket leak and he was hearing the combustion event rattle the head gasket. Farmer advised Gonzalo to take the truck back to the person who had performed the work. Appellees began renting a car on March 2, 2011, when Brenda's car also began having problems. According to Gonzalo, the rental car was to replace the truck while it was in for repairs. Appellees paid $3,117.87 to rent a car until July 1, 2011.

Gonzalo spoke to Sanchez about the problems appellees were having with the truck. Sanchez assured Gonzalo that it was not a problem that the warranty period had expired and, on March 15, 2011, Gonzalo arranged for the truck to be taken to Lone Star on a flatbed trailer. Gonzalo testified the truck had been driven only about 125 miles since appellees picked it up from Lone Star because the truck was overheating. According to Sanchez, there was oil and water mixing in the truck and blowing steam out of the tailpipe. He told appellees the truck needed a new exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooler and that the work would cost $750. Sanchez installed the EGR cooler and, in doing so, "modified" one of the ports to the EGR system by welding two plugs into the cooler. Sanchez claimed the work he performed redirected, but did not cut off, the coolant flow to the engine and the modification complied with modifications being done by Ford and by the "aftermarket." In Sanchez's opinion, the engine ran cooler after the modification because of greater water flow velocity. Sanchez also replacedone of the injectors because the truck "was missing on one cylinder." Lone Star charged appellees $1,198 for the repairs.

Sanchez drove the truck after these repairs were complete and discovered the transmission would "lock up" whenever the truck shifted into second gear. Appellees both testified the transmission was working when the truck was taken to Lone Star, but Sanchez denied that any of the work he performed would have affected the transmission. Sanchez offered to replace the transmission if appellees would pay for the labor, but appellees chose to take the truck to Juan's Transmission. Appellees paid Juan's Transmission $1,405.71 to repair the transmission.

In the summer of 2011, Gonzalo took the truck back to FD&P. Farmer testified the truck had white smoke in the exhaust at initial start, the truck had a "hard start," and Gonzalo complained the engine had been overheating. After a driving test, Farmer confirmed the oil temperature in appellees' truck was "extremely excessive." To determine whether an injector was bypassing too much high pressure oil, Farmer removed the injectors and performed bench tests. The tests indicated a "couple" of the injectors were bypassing oil and there was extensive damage to the spool valves on those injectors. Farmer replaced three of the injectors. After these repairs, the truck was operable, and Gonzalo instructed Farmer to perform no additional repairs because he did not have the money to pay for the additional work.

However, when Gonzalo arrived at FD&P to retrieve the truck, it would not start. Farmer performed additional testing and discovered the injection pressure regulator (IPR) had failed. The IPR determines the amount of oil directed toward the injectors. When Farmer removed the IPR, he found it had "disassembled itself" from its normal mounting position. Farmer testified that his work on the injectors did not cause the IPR failure; rather, it failed because it was the "next weakest link" after the injectors were repaired.

According to Farmer, the injectors and the IPR failed because the oil filter allowed contaminants to enter those components. Farmer removed the oil filter and discovered the oil filtration bypass pressure plug was "nowhere to be found." He disassembled the upper intake system, the turbocharger system, and the oil cooler housing and found the bypass plug had melted and the residue had run down inside the housing. After the bypass plug melted, the oil in the truck was not filtered. Farmer examined the high pressure oil reservoir and found a "soup of metal material" in that reservoir. The oil cooler had "quite a bit of clogging due to the particulate that had been through it." According to Farmer, the lack of an oil filter led to the IPR "disassembling" itself and would lead to erosion throughout the engine. Farmer testified that every "rotating assembly unit" inside the truck's engine was damaged.

Farmer testified peak operating temperature for the engine is 212 degrees Fahrenheit, and the bypass plug is designed to...