Thomas W. Taylor
Partner
ttaylor@andrewskurth.com

600 Travis
Suite 4200
Houston TX 77002
P: 713.220.3991
F: 713.220.4285

Download v-card

Co-chair of the Firm’s Litigation Section (with Richard Caldwell), Tom's civil litigation practice emphasizes defense of mass multi-party litigation.  He has extensive civil jury trial experience in state and federal court, with in excess of thirty jury verdicts, and a much greater number of cases that settled during trial.  His specific experience includes defending toxic tort cases, medical malpractice cases, insurance coverage claims and commercial litigation.

Tom also has a substantial civil appellate litigation practice.  He has presented oral arguments before the Texas Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Districts of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Representative Experience

• Commercial Litigation

  • Morrison vs. Amway Corporation, 49 F. Supp. 2d 529 (S. D. Texas 1998)  Local defense counsel. Present and former Independent Business Owners in multi-level marketing business brought suit against international multi-level marketing company and a number of co-defendants in a complaint seeking $100 million in damages for purported violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and other federal and state claims.  As local counsel for the primary defendant we were successful in a 1998 ruling by Judge Melinda Harmon staying the case pending arbitration.  Judgment on the merits entered in favor of defendants in 2005 following arbitration.  Case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

  • Wyler Industrial Works vs. Performance Crane & Hoist and The Boeing Company, No. 2001-1443, In the County Civil Court at Law Number Seven of El Paso County, Texas (2001).  Lead defense counsel in district court.  Subcontractor of general military contractor brought breach of contract action for alleged moneys owed for work performed on military testing range.  Since none of the work was performed in El Paso County and our client the military contractor's principal places of business in Texas are in San Antonio and Houston, we filed a motion to transfer venue to Harris County or, alternatively, Bexar County.  Following full briefing and oral argument, El Paso Court granted our motion to transfer venue.  Plaintiff did not attempt to appeal the venue decision and dismissed their claims against our client.

  • Clotilde Persyn vs. Greater Kelly Development Authority, et al., No. SA-01-CA-0397OG, In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division (1998).  Lead defense counsel in district court.  Landowner brought alleged nuisance case against major military defense contractor for noise and other alleged complaints arising from use of runways at Kelly Air Force Base by large multi-engine military aircraft being maintained by contactor for the U.S. Air Force.  Noting that Kelly Air Force Base had been in continuous use since 1917 and had accommodated jet aircraft since 1947 the district court granted defense contractor's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.

  • Tillery & Parks Company LP vs. S&B Supply, Inc., No. 20082, In the County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Fort Bend County, Texas.  Counsel of record for plaintiff in trial court.  Oilfield equipment company brought breach of contract case against customer for non-payment.  After discovery we obtained summary judgment against defendant for full amount owed, plus attorneys fees.  Defendant did not appeal.

  • Marquis Construction Co. vs. Johnson Masonry, 665 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ).  Appellate counsel for plaintiff-appellee.  Quantum meruit and breach of contract claim was brought by subcontractor against general contractor.  Following trial on the merits the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff subcontractor and defendant appealed.  On appeal the court of appeals held that the documentary evidence introduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to support the judgment, and that the records were properly proven up as business records, and the court affirmed the district court's award of damages to the subcontractor.
    

• Class Action Litigation

  • Robert L. Abernathy vs. A.C.&S., Inc., et al; No. A-920,967-C; In the 128th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas (1997). Approximately 4,000 allegedly asbestos-exposed workers sought class certification to allow their personal injury and wrongful death claims to proceed against a large number of defendants as a class action.  Following several years of class discovery and an evidentiary hearing on class certification with fact and expert testimony, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Though such orders can be appealed under Texas procedural law, plaintiffs chose not to appeal.  Case subsequently settled as to our client.

  • Cimino vs. Raymark Industries, Inc.,  739 F. Supp. 328, modified,  751 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Texas 1990), reversed, 151 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1998). Co defense counsel in district court, lead defense counsel for two defendants in Phase Two of class proceedings (resolved by stipulation), not involved in appeal.  2,300 allegedly asbestos-exposed workers brought suit against former manufacturers of asbestos containing products and former miners of raw asbestos, to recover for personal injuries and wrongful death purportedly caused by asbestos.  Over objections of defendants, district court certified class, and ordered three-phase class trial.  Jury returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in approximately 85% of claims and in favor of defendants in approximately 15% of claims.  On appeal (in which we had no involvement) the Fifth Circuit found numerous errors in the trial and in the district court's Cimino trial management plan, and reversed the verdicts and the class certification.
    

• Toxic Tort Litigation

  • Jimmy Ward, et al vs. BP America Production Company, et al, Severed From No. 00-10-06613, Vicki Anderson et al vs. Able Supply Co., et al; In the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas (2003). Lead defense counsel in district court.  Survivors of deceased former production company employee brought suit against Employer for alleged wrongful lung cancer death of employee purportedly caused by alleged exposure to asbestos.  Three week jury trial in 2003.  Jury returned take-nothing verdict in favor of all defendants.   

  •  In Re BP Amoco Chemical Company and BP Products North America Inc., No 14-06-00778-CV, (Tex. App.--Houston[14th Dist.] January 25, 2007, orig. proceeding). Appellate counsel for defense on discovery mandamus petition.  Court of appeals ruled in our favor on petition for writ of mandamus challenging district court order in alleged benzene exposure case compelling two affiliated petrochemical companies to produce documents in response to discovery requests not properly limited in time and scope, including unpublished epidemiological data.  Court held that requests were overbroad and district court abused its discretion in ordering production pursuant to the improper requests.

  • Lois Yvonne Russell vs. Amoco Production Company, No. 14-05-00068-CV (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.], appeal dism'd by agreement August 25, 2006). Lead defense counsel in district court and appellate court.  Former production company employee brought suit against his employer for alleged personal injuries from purported exposure to asbestos, with petition amended to assert wrongful death claim upon his death.  District court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon employee's signature on employee termination agreement which, for substantial consideration, release all claims arising out of his employment, including tort claims.  Plaintiffs appealed.  Following full briefing and oral argument at the Court of Appeals, the case was resolved by settlement and the appeal dismissed by agreement.

  • Tommy Joe Thompson vs. AK Steel Corporation, No. 22615*JG02; In the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. (September 14, 2004). Lead defense counsel in district court.  Contractor brought suit against three Firm clients in the petroleum refining industry (and a large number of other defendants) for lung cancer allegedly caused by purported asbestos exposure at premises owned by defendants.  Following completion of discovery, full briefing on the merits, and two oral hearings, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of our clients,  holding that plaintiff failed to create a fact issue of asbestos exposure at these defendants' facilities.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.

  • Christopher Stoeckler vs. American Oil Company, No CV-35116; In the 159/217 Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas (October 17, 2003). Lead defense counsel in district court.  Plaintiff brought suit against oil company for lung cancer allegedly caused by purported asbestos exposure at a service station.  Following completion of discovery, full briefing on the merits, and an oral hearing, the district court granted our oil company client's motion for summary judgment, holding that the oil company owed no legal duty to the plaintiff under applicable state law.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.

  • Matthew Boney et al vs. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation et al, No. A-150,374-Z, In the 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas (2000).  Lead defense counsel in district court. Group of asbestos-exposed industrial workers brought suit against numerous defendants for personal injuries and wrongful death from asbestos-related diseases.  We represented an alleged successor to a major manufacturer of asbestos and asbestos-products produced prior to May 31, 1967.  Seven week trial lasting from late November 1999 to early January 2000 resulted in significant verdict in favor of plaintiffs.  Following post-verdict motions preparatory to appeal the case settled for an amount far less than the judgment.

  • Rapid-American Corporation vs. Link, No. 97-0023, In the Supreme Court of Texas (1997). Lead defense counsel in district court and appellate counsel on mandamus review.  We represented a New York-based company with no presence in Texas in a number of alleged asbestos cases filed in Texas.  We challenged personal jurisdiction over those claims brought by individuals who neither resided nor claimed exposure to asbestos in Texas.  Following an adverse ruling in the district court, we pursued review of the jurisdictional ruling in the appellate courts, which under the rules applicable at the time was by mandamus.  Following a preliminary ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that the Court was of the tentative opinion that our client was entitled to the relief we sought and setting the matter for oral argument, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our client from several thousand pending asbestos cases in Texas, thereby mooting the action in the Texas Supreme Court.

  • Click vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 899 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ ref'd n.r.e.).  Trial counsel for former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation product in alleged wrongful death case brought by survivors of refinery worker.  At the close of plaintiffs' case-in-chief we moved for instructed verdict, arguing that there was no evidence that the decedent had been exposed to the product manufactured by our client, and the district court granted the motion.  On appeal the court of appeals found enough evidence in the record of alleged exposure to create a fact issue, and reversed the district court and remanded the case for trial.  Case subsequently settled.

  • Alton Ray Jefferson, Sr. vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., No. 94-07824-G, In the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, appealed sub. nom., Owens Corning Fiberglas vs. Jefferson, No. 05-95-0110-CV, In the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas.  Lead defense counsel in district court and lead appellate counsel on appeal.  17 asbestos-exposed workers brought suit for personal injuries allegedly caused by asbestos.  Court granted directed verdict in favor of defense as to 1 plaintiff, and jury found in favor of plaintiffs as to 16 of the claimants.  Following full briefing and oral argument at the court of appeals the case settled.

  • Lewis Jewell v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.  In the District Court of Harris County, Texas (1994).  Lead defense counsel for one defendant.  Refinery contractor brought claim for alleged asbestosis against insulation manufacturers.  Following jury trial jury returned defense verdict in favor of all defendants.

  •  Fibreboard Corporation vs. Pool, 813 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1991, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 923 (1993).  Trial counsel for former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation product in group of claims brought by chemical plant workers.  Verdict in favor of plaintiffs followed a three week trial.  Appeals were unsuccessful and judgment was ultimately paid.

  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. vs. Caldwell, 830 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proc.).  Co-appellate counsel for defense on mandamus petition challenging district court's blanket order appointing a special master.  Court of Appeals agreed with our position that the underlying litigation was not an "exceptional case" so as to justify appointment of a special master and ordered the trial court to vacate its order.

  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. vs. Caldwell, 822 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proc.).  Co-appellate counsel for defense on mandamus petition challenging district court's sanctions order arising out of discovery dispute.  Court of Appeals agreed with our position and held that the trial judge had failed to comply with one of its prior mandamus orders, that the trial judge had exceeded his authority in ordering sanctions, and that he exceeded his authority in ordering in camera review of disputed documents.

  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. vs. Caldwell, 818 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1991, orig proc.). Co-appellate counsel for defense on mandamus petition challenging district court's discovery order. Texas Supreme Court agreed with our position and held that the attorney work product doctrine was perpetual and was not case-specific, and thereby protects attorney work product documents from prior litigation.

  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. vs. Caldwell, 814 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1991, orig. proc.).  Co-appellate counsel for defense on mandamus petition.  Per Curiam order from Texas Supreme Court to allow district court to reconsider its prior rulings in light of Supreme Court's decision in Braden vs. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991). 

  • McNair vs. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 890 F.2d 753 (5th  Cir. 1990). Lead defense counsel in district court, and co-appellate counsel on appeal.  Two asbestos-exposed workers brought personal injury suit in federal district court against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Defense verdict as to claims of one plaintiff,  small plaintiff verdict as to second plaintiff.  Verdict for prevailing plaintiff reduced by offsets and credits under Texas law.  Appeal challenged method in which credits were calculated and contended that further reductions were due.  Appeal was unsuccessful and small judgment was ultimately paid at conclusion of appeal.

  • Lorenz vs. The Celotex Corporation, 896 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1990). Lead defense counsel in district court, and co-appellate counsel on appeal.  Survivors of asbestos-exposed career US Navy enlisted man brought lung cancer wrongful death suit against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Following two week trial, jury returned defense verdict of no liability and plaintiffs appealed.  On appeal , the Fifth Circuit held that jury instructions regarding defendant's compliance with applicable government asbestos regulations were proper, and affirmed take-nothing judgment in favor of defendant.

  • King vs. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 906 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1990).  Lead counsel for defense in district court, and co-appellate counsel on appeal.  Group of asbestos-exposed workers brought personal injury and wrongful death suit in federal district court against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Verdict for plaintiffs following three-week trial.  Verdict reduced by applicable offsets and credits, but appeal did not further reduce judgment and judgment was ultimately paid at conclusion of appeal.

  • The Celotex Corporation vs. Tate, 797 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, writ dism'd by agr.).  Lead defense counsel for one defendant in district court, co-appellate counsel on appeal.  Survivors of deceased asbestos factory worker brought suit against suppliers of raw asbestos to workplace.  Following two-week jury trial jury returned verdict in favor of plaintiff.   Court of appeals affirmed district court's judgment, and case settled while pending at Texas Supreme Court.

  • Charlene Yerby vs. Fibreboard Corp., et al, No. 88-10329-M, In the 298th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  Lead counsel for defense in district court.  Three asbestos-exposed workers brought suit against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Following a two-week trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs that was primarily offset by settlement credits.  Neither side appealed and the judgment was paid.

  • Aguirre vs. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 901 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1990).  Lead defense counsel in district court, and lead appellate counsel on appeal.  Group of asbestos-exposed workers brought personal injury suit in federal district court against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Verdict for plaintiffs following three-day trial.  Verdict reduced by applicable offsets and credits, but appeal did not further reduce judgment and judgment was ultimately paid at conclusion of appeal.

  • Pecorino vs. Raymark Industries, Inc., 763 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1988, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Lead defense counsel and lead appellate counsel.  Survivors of asbestos exposed worker brought suit for lung cancer wrongful death against former manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products.  District court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs' decedent's prior asbestos lawsuit barred subsequent lawsuit, and plaintiffs appealed.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of defendants and held that prior asbestos lawsuit began the running of the statute of limitations, and barred subsequent suit.  Plaintiffs then sought review by the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the petition, finding no error that was reversible.

  • Aranda et al vs. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al; In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division (1988). Lead defense counsel in district court.  Four asbestos-exposed workers brought suit against former manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products.  Following jury trial jury returned defense verdict in favor of defendant that all plaintiffs take nothing.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.

  • Hargrave vs. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1983).  Co-appellate counsel.  Appeal was taken by defendant/third-party plaintiff from adverse ruling in district court dismissing third-party action against parent company of alleged predecessor.  On appeal the Fifth Circuit held that Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant based in the United Kingdom, and that to the extent that jurisdiction did exist there was no evidence to support direct liability by the parent corporation for the acts of its subsidiary.
    

• Insurance Coverage Litigation

  • Insurance Corporation of America vs. Webster, 906 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).  Lead trial counsel for third-party defendant.  Physician and medical malpractice plaintiff brought suit against physician's primary professional liability insurer under Stowers theory to recover above policy limits.  Professional liability primary insurer filed third-party action against excess carrier, which cross-claimed against primary insurer.  During jury trial primary insurer dismissed claims against our client the excess carrier following court's preliminary ruling striking primary insurer's expert witness on our objection and motion.  Following excess carrier's dismissal primary insurer was allowed to present its expert.  Case proceeded to verdict in favor of plaintiff, which was ultimately reversed by court of appeals.

  • Piper Alpha North Sea Oil Platform Explosion Litigation. Assisted in analyzing primary insurance cover and first, second and third layers of excess insurance cover on behalf of drilling company that was the employer of certain of the individuals killed and injured in this 1988 North Sea oil platform explosion.
    
    

•  Medical Malpractice

  • Askew vs. Memorial City General Hospital, 1990 WL 64263 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ)(not designated for publication).  Lead defense counsel and lead appellate counsel.  Alleged medical malpractice claim brought against hospital and surgeon.  District court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of defendants that plaintiff take nothing, and held that the record before the Court demonstrated that the actions of the surgeon and the hospital were consistent with the standard of care.

Professional / Civic Affiliations

Member

• Houston Bar Association, Sections of Environmental Law and Litigation
• State Bar of Texas
• Texas Association of Defense Cousel
• Defense Research Institute

Fellow

• Texas Bar Foundation

Headline News

• Andrews Kurth Announces Policy Committee Election (August 16, 2007)
• Andrews Kurth Adds Two New Faces to Policy Committee (August 31, 2006)

Industries

• Aviation

Practice Areas

• Arbitration/Mediation
• Mass Tort Litigation
• Appellate
• Environmental
• Litigation

Education

• JD, 1982, The University of Texas School of Law, Order of Barristers, Board of Advocates, Winner and Best Oral Advocate, Hildebrand Moot Court Competion (1982)
• BA, 1979, magna cum laude, Political Science, Texas Christian University, Dean's List, Pi Sigma Alpha, Pi Kappa Delta, Dave C. Reed Scholarship for Academic Achievement, House of Student Representatives, Intercollegiate Debate Team

Admitted

• Texas 1982
• All Texas State Courts
• Supreme Court of Texas
• US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
• US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
• US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• US District Court for the Western District of Texas
• US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• US Supreme Court