THOMAS F. NYE
Managing Attorney
|
Tom assists clients with trials and appellate matters in Texas state courts, the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He has been licensed to practice law for 38 years and has been Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law for 31 years. He draws on his experience to work with in-house counsel and trial teams from other firms to provide pre-trial, trial and post-trial motion support and assistance in preserving error. Tom also provides clients with assistance on original proceedings and default judgments.
Tom has handled more than 200 appeals and participated in more than 400 briefs since 1988. In addition, he has been a previous recipient of Texas Monthly’s "Super Lawyer" designation in Appellate Practice for the Corpus Christi area. Super Lawyers are limited to no more than 5% of practicing lawyers in the State of Texas. Education
Professional Associations
|
Email: [email protected]
|
Awards
- Judge Paul W. Nye Professionalism Award, Corpus Christi Bar Association, 2010
- In re Trisura Ins. Co., No. 13-25-00102-CV, 2025 WL 2094146 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 25, 2025, orig. proceeding)
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals granted insurer’s petition for writ of mandamus and held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to compel appraisal in a first-party claim where the insured was not seeking policy benefits. - In re Trisura Ins. Co., No. 13-25-00139-CV, 2025 WL 2094147 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 25, 2025, orig. proceeding)
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals granted insurer, defendant adjusting company, and defendant adjuster’s petition for writ of mandamus holding, in part, that the trial court abused its discretion in not dismissing the insured’s claims against the adjusting company and adjuster pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Section 542A.006. - In re Wong, No. -- S.W.3d --, 08-25-00098-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso July 22, 2025, orig. proceeding)
Defendant doctor filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order granting a new trial. The Eighth Court of Appeals granted the petition and found that the trial court’s order was facially invalid and there was no merit-based reason for the trial court’s granting of a new trial. - In re Lemus, No. 13-25-00120-CV, 2025 WL 1722401 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 20, 2025, orig. proceeding)
A defendant driver filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order granting a new trial. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief holding that the trial court’s order was facially invalid for failing to include a clear and detailed explanation for the granting of a new trial. - Pathlink of Tex., LLC v. Balderrama, 705 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2024, pet. dism’d)
Parents brought negligence and medical malpractice claims against the company that performed the autopsy on their child following his death at the hospital. The Eighth Court of Appeals held that these claims alleged departures from accepted standards of professional or administrative services, were directly related to health care, and were subject to the Texas Medical Liability Act’s expert report requirements. - In re Madrigal, No. 04-24-00031-CV, 2024 WL 3347865 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024, orig. proceeding)
A defendant driver filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order granting a new trial. The Fourth Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief holding that the trial court’s articulated reasons for the granting of a new trial were not supported by the record and the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury. - Rinkle v. Graf, 658 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.)
Husband and wife brought negligence and medical malpractice claims against a doctor who allegedly improperly placed a central-line catheter in the husband. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that, although the statutorily required expert reports were filed of record with the court, the expert reports were not properly served on the defendant doctor and thus did not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act. - Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. A.M.A. by & through Ramirez, 654 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. 2022) (reh’g denied)
Mother brought negligence and medical malpractice claims on behalf of minor child against the hospital and its staff alleging that a delay at birth caused the minor child’s injuries. The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s periodic-payments order contradicted the jury’s verdict and the evidence and was thus insufficient to support the trial court’s structuring of the jury’s future damage awards. - Christus Spohn Health Sys. Corp. v. High, 658 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2022, pet. denied, reh’g denied)
Patients brought negligence claims against a hospital alleging that they were switched at birth and discharged to wrong families. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of first impression, these claims were health care liability claims subject to the Texas Medical Liability Act’s expert report requirements. - Loya Insurance Company v. Avalos, 610 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2020)
Following a favorable judgment in a prior negligence claim, motorists sued the insured’s automobile liability carrier. The carrier claimed that it had no duty to defend the insured in the underlying suit. The Supreme Court created a new exception to the “eight-corners rule” holding that courts can consider extrinsic evidence of collusive fraud by the insured when determining the insurer's duty to defend. The Court also held that insurers are not obligated to defend if there is clear evidence that fraudulent claims were intentionally manipulated by the insured. - Medina v. Zuniga, 593 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2019)
Pedestrian brought an action against a motorist for negligence and gross negligence for damages she sustained when the vehicle motorist struck the pedestrian as she was walking. The Texas Supreme Court held that the actions of the motorist in declining to admit negligence through pre-trial admissions—but later conceding negligence at trial—did not give rise to sanctionable conduct. The Court also held that the proof of the motorist’s negligent conduct did not constitute competent evidence of gross negligence. - Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. v. Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. 2017)
Deceased patient’s minor children, through their guardian, brought a health care liability action against hospitals, doctors and other defendants. The Texas Supreme Court held that the children’s expert reports were deficient under the Texas Medical Liability Act because they failed to provide a factual explanation as to how the hospital proximately caused the death of the patient. - In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding)
Plaintiff's counsel hired legal assistant who had previously worked for defense counsel and performed work on the case for both. The Texas Supreme Court held in client's favor—that when screening measures are demonstrated to be ineffective—disqualification is required. - JCW Electronics, Inc v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. 2008)
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of both the court of appeals and the trial court in a death claim filed by a representative of a city jail inmate’s estate, who sought damages for breach of implied warranty under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Court determined that claims of this nature are classified as torts and are therefore subject to proportionate responsibility claims. - Military Highway Water Supply Corp. v. Morin, 156 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2005)
This appeal involved a wrongful death and survival action brought against a public utility to recover for damages following an automobile accident. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the client holding that the public utility owed no duty to the plaintiff. - Brownsville-Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gamez, 894 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. 1995)
The Texas Supreme Court held for the first time that a guardian ad litem may not recover fees for services rendered after resolution of conflict. The Court reversed and rendered judgment in client's favor.
