Permanent Injunction and Damages: Does a judgment awarding both violate the prohibition against dual recovery?
The supreme court has specifically recognized that only when a judgment awards “both an injunction and damages as to future effects” is there an impermissible double recovery. Schneider v. Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tex. 2004). In the absence of an award of future damages, there is no double recovery. See id. As one court of appeals recognized, an award of permanent injunctive relief and past damages was not a double recovery because no future damages were awarded. F.S. New Prods., Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 129 S.W.3d 606, 631-32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004), rev’d in part on other grounds, 221 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2006).
THE ONE-SATISFACTION RULE
A party is entitled to bring suit and seek damages on alternative theories; however, the plaintiff may not recover on both theories because these would amount to a “double recovery.” Waite Hill Servs., Inc. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. 1998); Foley v. Parlier, 68 S.W.3d 870, 882 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).
THE RULE AGAINST DUAL RECOVERY ("WINDFALL")
A double recovery exists when a plaintiff is awarded more than one recovery for the same injury. Waite Hill Servs., 959 S.W.2d at 184; Foley, 68 S.W.3d at 882-83. “Texas law does not permit double recovery.” Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 441 (Tex. 1995). The prohibition against double recovery is a corollary to the one satisfaction rule, Foley, 68 S.W.3d at 883, which provides that a plaintiff may recover only for the damages suffered as a result of a particular injury. Utts v. Short, 81 S.W.3d 822, 833 (Tex. 2002).
SOURCE: SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS - 04-10-00602-CV – 11/23/11