Document gbRmVVVO7LgE2E0EbEBb3xBbG

3PY CAUSE NO. 2000-05- . l.:------ O'CLOCK___L_L M AURORA DE LA GARZA DIST. CLERK JAN 18 2001 ROBERT HENRY VILLARREAL. Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of JOHN HENRY VILLARREAL Plaintiffs, vs. GAF CORPORATION HOLDINGS. INC.), ET AL. Defendants. CAMERON 197TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE COME NOW, Dana Corporation. Quigley Company, Inc., T&N LTD (f/k/a T&N pic and Turner & Newell pic). Union Carbide Corporation f/k/a Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics, Inc., and United States Gypsum Company, (hereinafter "Defendants"). Defendants in the above-referenced cause, herebv request the court to bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive damages, if any. from the trial of all other issues, and in support thereof show': I. This is an action by Plaintiffs for damages based upon alleged exposure to asbestos products. In addition to actual damages. Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages against the Defendants. II. Defendants, in good faith, believe it would be unfairly prejudicial to allow evidence relevant onl\ to the amount of punitive damages to be considered by the jury along with other issues in this matter. According to the Texas Supreme Court in Trdnsportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994). "evidence of a defendant's net worth, which is generally relevant only to the amount of punitive damages, by highlighting the relative wealth of a defendant, has a very real potential for preiudicmg the jury's determination of other disputed issues in a ton case." Id. at 30. Thus, if presented with a timely motion, the tnal coun should bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive damages from the remaining issues. Id. III. In Moriel. the Texas Supreme Coun provided that the jury should first hear evidence relevant to liability for actual damages and liability for punitive damages, and then return findings on those issues. The same jury should then be presented with evidence of a defendant's net worth, and any other evidence relevant to the amount of punitive damages, only if it answered the punitive damage liability question in the plaintiff s favor. Id. b. F iCCR^Cjmeron A ilijrrejJ. JonmDefendoms Motion to Bifurcate doc WHEREFORE. Defendants respectfully request that the court order a bifurcation of the determination of the amount of punitive damages from the remaining issues in this matter, and make such other orders as the court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted, POWERS & FROST, L.L.P. Cj- ____________ James H. Powers Texas State Bar No. 16217400 Sharia J. Frost Texas State Bar No. 07491100 Gwendolyn S. Frost Texas State Bar No. 07488750 2600 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 767-1555 Facsimile: (713) 767-1799 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that a true and correct of Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate has been forwarded to Plaintiffs' counsel of record either by first class mail, return receipt requested, delivery or facsimile on this the f?^- dav of ,, 2001. 3- - F \CCR'CarneromViltorreal. JohnlDeiendanis Motion to Bifurcate doc