Challenge Transportation, Inc. v. J-Gem Transportation, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Eckman v. Centennial Sav. Bank

    784 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1990)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the defendant has the burden of proving the applicability of a $25 million exception to "business consumer status" under the DTPA

    In response, Centennial asserts that the Eckman group should be required to show that they did not have assets of $25,000,000 or more as part of the proof required to establish consumer status. In support of the proposition that the defendant should bear the burden to plead and prove the applicability of the $25,000,000 exception of section 17.45(4), the Eckman group relies upon Challenge Transportation v. J-Gem Transportation, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In that case, the court of appeals held that the defendant had the burden to plead and prove that the plaintiff fell within the category of excepted businesses.

  2. Henry S. Miller Management Corp. v. Houston State Associates

    792 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App. 1990)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that pleadings asserting, among other things, contract breach gave sufficient notice of claim for affirmative relief, in part because plaintiff prayed for damages

    Miller cites no legal authority. Miller had the burden to disprove that HSA was a consumer under the DTPA. Challenge Transportation, Inc. v. J. Gem Transportation, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also Eckman v. Centennial Savings, 784 S.W.2d 672, 674-75 (1990).

  3. Eckman v. Centennial Sav. Bank

    742 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, there is no evidence to review which would allow appellants to qualify as a business consumer under the $25 million limitation. Appellants insist that Centennial had the burden to plead and prove as an affirmative defense the $25 million exception, citing as authority the recent decision, Challenge Transportation, Inc. v. J-Gem Transportation, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, Challenge deals only with "consumers" as per section 17.45, subparagraph (4) not "business consumers within the meaning of Section 17.45(4)(10)" as pleaded by appellants. Within the statutory scheme, the term "business consumer" incorporates the term "consumer."