Lawyer Lingo: What is the name of the windfall-preclusion rule?

Can't get no satisfaction...? Well, some plaintiffs will, but the court will likely say once is enough 

 

THE ONE SATISFACTION RULE & SETTLEMENT CREDITS 

  

The purpose of the one satisfaction rule is to prevent a windfall to the plaintiff, not to deprive the plaintiff of full recovery for his or her injury from multiple defendants simply because a contract limits the liability of one of the defendants. See, e.g., First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex. 1993) (“The rationale for this doctrine is that the plaintiff should not receive a windfall by recovering an amount in court that covers the plaintiff’s entire damages, but to which a settling defendant has already partially contributed.”); Smith v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 126 S.W.3d 106, 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (“[T]he ‘One Satisfaction Rule’ . . . was designed to prevent a windfall to plaintiffs, and dictates that when a plaintiff files a suit against multiple defendants for a single injury, any settlements will be credited against the amount for which non-settling defendants are found liable.”) 

SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 01-10-00672-CV - 12/1/11 

Can the trial court award both injunctive relief AND damages?

   

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