Unimex Logistics, LLC and Margo Logistics LP v. Tim Neff Towing, Inc. D/B/A TNT Wrecker Service

Citation: Not availableDocket: 09-16-00275-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 24, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unimex Logistics, LLC is appealing a judgment from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, Texas, which found it liable for $21,332 owed to Tim Neff Towing, Inc. for services related to a spill caused by an overturned eighteen-wheeler. The incident occurred while Unimex was transporting brake calipers, with the tractor leased from Margo Logistics. The total charges from Neff Towing amounted to $35,942, of which Unimex had already paid $14,562 before the lawsuit. Unimex did not dispute ownership of the trailer involved in the spill but contended it was not liable for the towing and storage charges, asserting that Margo Logistics and the cargo owner should bear the responsibility. However, evidence presented during the trial established that Unimex was the designated carrier under Department of Transportation regulations and that Neff Towing acted on a police officer's directive to tow the vehicle without Unimex's consent. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, recognizing Unimex's liability in quantum meruit for the services rendered by Neff Towing.

The lease agreement between Unimex and Margo Logistics includes an indemnity provision mandating Margo Logistics to indemnify Unimex for expenses and damages resulting from the operation of a tractor by a leased driver. Unimex counterclaimed, alleging Margo Logistics breached this agreement by failing to pay Neff Towing’s charges. The trial court found Margo Logistics in breach and ordered it to indemnify Unimex for $35,894. Following the trial, the court awarded Neff Towing $21,332 in damages, along with prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, making both Margo Logistics and Unimex jointly and severally liable for these amounts.

The trial court determined that Neff Towing’s services were beneficial to both parties, with charges totaling $32,719 deemed reasonable and necessary, and no requirement to separate costs between the tractor and trailer. Both entities received notice that Neff Towing expected compensation for its services. Unimex had paid Neff Towing $14,562, leaving $21,332 unpaid at trial. The court concluded that both Unimex and Margo Logistics were liable to Neff Towing due to their shared benefit from the services rendered.

Unimex raised eleven appellate issues, contesting the trial court's findings regarding its liability to Neff Towing under quantum meruit, the sufficiency of notice regarding compensation, and the assertion that Unimex benefited from the services despite not owning the tractor involved in the incident. Unimex argued against the need for Neff Towing to segregate charges or apportion costs between itself and other responsible parties, as well as the overall liability determination based on joint ownership of the tractor and trailer involved in the spill.

Unimex and Margo Logistics are held jointly and severally liable for Neff Towing’s unpaid charges based on a joint enterprise theory. The court found that Neff Towing had no adequate legal remedy, despite the existence of a remedy that allowed Neff Towing to sell a tractor owned by Margo Logistics to recover charges related to a spill. Unimex challenges the trial court’s findings and conclusions that made it responsible for the services Neff Towing rendered after the incident, invoking a de novo standard of review. The trial court's legal conclusions are not subject to factual insufficiency challenges, but rather are assessed to determine if the law was properly applied. Written findings of fact from the trial court carry the same weight as a jury verdict. When evaluating legal sufficiency, evidence is viewed favorably towards the trial court's findings, while factual sufficiency complaints require a review of the entire record to ascertain whether the trial court’s findings are against the weight of the evidence. The trial court alone determines witness credibility and can weigh their testimony. Unimex's appeal brief is noted for its lack of organization, presenting arguments under eight sections rather than aligning them with its eleven issues, covering topics such as nonconsensual towing, timely notice, acceptance of services, charge segregation, and joint liability.

The trial court's judgment in favor of Neff Towing is based on a quantum-meruit claim, which is an equitable remedy allowing recovery for beneficial services rendered when one party would be unjustly enriched if the other were not compensated. To succeed in a quantum-meruit claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they provided valuable services that the defendant accepted and benefited from, and that the defendant was reasonably notified of the expectation of payment. Recovery under quantum meruit is not permissible when an express contract exists for the provided services.

Unimex contends that Neff Towing performed a nonconsensual tow of the tractor, arguing it is not liable for towing charges since it did not own the tractor and claims the relevant Occupations Code only applies to motorized vehicles, not equipment like trailers. Unimex believes Margo Logistics, which owned the motorized equipment towed, should be responsible for the charges. However, the trial court found Unimex liable based on its role as the carrier during the incident that led to the spill, supported by the lease agreement with Margo Logistics. This lease specified Unimex’s exclusive possession and operational responsibility for the tractor during the spill, justifying the trial court's conclusion that Unimex was liable for towing charges.

Additionally, Unimex argues that Neff Towing did not provide timely notice regarding the expectation of payment for towing and storage post-spill, asserting it only learned of the charges two weeks after the incident.

Unimex received a document from Neff Towing shortly after the towing of an eighteen-wheeler, which indicated that storage charges would continue to accrue until the vehicle was released. This document, sent to both Unimex and Margo Logistics, did not explicitly state that Unimex was expected to pay for the towing services. A witness from Neff Towing testified about a conversation with an Unimex representative, claiming that there was no communication about payment expectations. The document, introduced into evidence, provided details on the rig, storage location, daily charges, outstanding fees, towing and storage dates, and instructions for reclaiming the vehicle. It was dated August 1, 2013, around 18 days after the spill, supporting the trial court's finding that Neff Towing expected payment from the recipients of the document.

During the trial, Neff Towing's manager indicated that he spoke with Unimex employee Rudy about charges, asserting Rudy did not object to the towing or storage fees. Following this conversation, Unimex sent a payment of $14,562 to Neff Towing. The manager further testified that Rudy indicated a future payment would be made after discussions with Margo Logistics and an insurance company. A corporate representative from Unimex confirmed authorizing the payment after recognizing that Neff Towing had not been compensated. Evidence presented indicated Unimex was aware of the storage arrangement and charges shortly after the towing incident and that its lease made it responsible for such charges.

Unimex contended that Neff Towing did not prove it provided services to Unimex or that Unimex accepted these services, arguing it did not own the tractor or cargo involved in the spill. However, evidence showed that Unimex owned the trailer and had leased the tractor involved in the incident, affirming its status as a carrier for hire for the spilled cargo.

The Texas Transportation Code establishes that the duties and liabilities of carriers for hire align with common law unless specified otherwise. Under Texas common law, carriers are fully liable for property loss or injury during transport. In this case, Unimex, as the carrier, could not avoid liability by arguing that the cargo owner's actions caused the spill, as they failed to present evidence supporting this claim or to show that the cargo owner assumed responsibility for loading. Consequently, Unimex was liable for the cleanup costs following the spill.

Unimex contended that Neff Towing should have separated charges related to the cargo, trailer, and tractor, asserting that the lack of specific evidence made the verdict excessive. However, because Unimex was the carrier responsible for the trip, it was liable for all reasonable charges incurred due to the spill, including towing and storage, without the need for apportionment of charges.

Additionally, Unimex argued that Neff Towing needed to demonstrate the absence of other legal remedies before recovering on a quantum-meruit basis. It cited a potential foreclosure remedy under property law related to possessory liens on vehicles. However, the court clarified that a plaintiff does not need to exhaust all other legal remedies to pursue a quantum-meruit claim.

The Property Code does not indicate that a garageman’s lien is the exclusive remedy for garagemen regarding nonconsensual tows. Unimex contends that Neff Towing could have utilized this lien to secure payment but fails to provide legal authority to support its assertion that the absence of a legal remedy is a prerequisite for a quantum-meruit claim recovery. The evidence demonstrated that Neff Towing did not seek to foreclose on its garageman’s lien. Consequently, the court rejects Unimex's argument that foreclosure was necessary before Neff Towing could pursue its quantum-meruit claim. Additionally, Unimex's other arguments hinge on the division of charges among entities associated with the cargo, tractor, and trailer involved in the spill. However, the trial court had sufficient evidence to hold Unimex accountable for the full amount owed to Neff Towing, as Unimex was responsible for the spilled cargo. Thus, Unimex's claims about joint liability with Margo Logistics are deemed non-prejudicial. All eleven of Unimex's issues are overruled, and the trial court's judgment against Unimex is affirmed. Margo Logistics, having failed to file a brief after appeal notification, is also affirmed in the judgment against it. The judgments awarded to Neff Towing against both Unimex and Margo Logistics are upheld.