The named defendants were American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (which was later nonsuited); Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Uber USA, LLC; Arian Yusufzai; and Dawood Kohistani.BankDirect Cap. Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76, 86 (Tex. 2017).
If a manufacturer meets this burden, Section 82.008(b)(1) allows the claimant to rebut the presumption by establishing that "the mandatory federal safety standards or regulations applicable to the product were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage."BankDirect Cap. Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76, 86 (Tex. 2017).
McKnight v. Moss , 2017 WL 2462315, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Laguan v. Lloyd , 493 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) ; Haynes v. Haire , 2014 WL 5409053, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 23, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Khyber Holdings, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n , 2014 WL 1018195, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Mekhail , 369 S.W.3d at 485 ; Gonzalez v. Razi , 338 S.W.3d 167, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) ; Jensen v. Covington , 234 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. denied) ; Leach v. Conner , 2003 WL 22860911, at *10 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 4, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.); Optimum Fund, L.L.C. v. Cito Int'l, Inc. , 2001 WL 1427629, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 15, 2001, pet. denied) ; Macha v. Carameros , 674 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1984, no writ) ; Page v. Burk , 582 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, no writ). 519 S.W.3d 76, 83 (Tex. 2017). At issue in BankDirect was Section 651.161(b) of the Insurance Code, which states:
am) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker's compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 467–69 (Tex. 1992) (determining abatement to be the consequence for failure to give required statutory notice); $435,000 , 842 S.W.2d at 644 (concluding that failure to hold forfeiture case hearing within statutorily required 30–day period did not require dismissal); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gratzer , 982 S.W.2d 88, 90–91 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (holding that officer's failure to comply with statutory deadline regarding notice of license suspension did not render DWI-warning form inadmissible because statute did not provide a consequence and driver did not assert any prejudice). We recently held in BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC that the failure to meet a statutory timelimit could not be excused, but that situation is distinguishable from the present one. 519 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. 2017). There, the issue was whether the Insurance Code permitted BankDirect, a premium finance company, to cancel an insured's policy even though BankDirect did not comply with a statutory timelimit for doing so.
It is a bedrock principle that "[i]f a case can be decided according to the statute itself, it must be decided according to the statute itself." BankDirect Cap. Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. 2017). "We take statutes as we find them and construe them ‘so that no part is surplusage, but so that each word has meaning.
Although the question before the Court has not been resolved by the Texas Supreme Court, Texas's Third Court of Appeals has squarely addressed the issue. SeePlasma Fab, LLC v. BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC , 468 S.W.3d 121, 131–32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015), aff'd on other grounds , 519 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. 2017) (holding that the insurer's "cancellation [of the policy] was effective regardless of [the premium finance company's] failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements"). The players and setting in Plasma Fab are nearly identical to those presented here: an insured was habitually late in repaying the premium finance company that financed its insurance policy, leading the premium finance company to send notices of cancellation and subsequent requests for reinstatement.
We do not read Chapter 131 to implicitly place the above-described limitations on the statute's scope—regarding speed, size, and distance—that the Legislature easily could have placed expressly but chose not to. SeeBankDirect Cap. Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 76, 87 (Tex. 2017) ("We must rely on the words of the statute, rather than rewrite those words to achieve an unstated purpose." (citation omitted)). Miles also appears to contend that the fact that the Texas Central Entities’ proposed railway will connect to the interstate rail system, and thus be subject to the Surface Transportation Board's jurisdiction, means it cannot be an "interurban" railway.
"Time-honored canons of interpretation, both semantic and contextual, can aid interpretation." BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 76, 84 (Tex. 2017). "Strictly speaking," however, the "canons" are "but grounds of argument resorted to for ... ascertaining the true meaning of the law."
iam) (noting that failure to comply with mandatory notice provision under worker's compensation law did not require dismissal of action for judicial review); Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 467-69 (Tex. 1992) (determining abatement to be the consequence for failure to give required statutory notice); $435,000, 842 S.W.2d at 644 (concluding that failure to hold forfeiture case hearing within statutorily required 30-day period did not require dismissal); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gratzer, 982 S.W.2d 88, 90-91 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (holding that officer's failure to comply with statutory deadline regarding notice of license suspension did not render DWI-warning form inadmissible because statute did not provide a consequence and driver did not assert any prejudice). We recently held in BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC that the failure to meet a statutory timelimit could not be excused, but that situation is distinguishable from the present one. 519 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. 2017). There, the issue was whether the Insurance Code permitted BankDirect, a premium finance company, to cancel an insured's policy even though BankDirect did not comply with a statutory timelimit for doing so.
Recently, we noted that "absent statutory language to the contrary, a statutorily imposed time period does not allow for substantial compliance." BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76, 83 (Tex. 2017). In addition, we have recognized that a deadline "is not something one can substantially comply with.