In 2017 Ron Valk, doing business as Platinum Construction, hired Don Triplett as superintendent for two self-storage construction projects, Triplett later hired Darryl Briggs, and with Triplett's husband, Doni Escoffie, they formed Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. for their own residential projects.¹ Platinum discovered that Triplett was diverting Platinum workers who were on its payroll to work on Triplett's projects, and sued Copper Creek, Escoffie and Briggs for theft of services, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment.² Platinum learned that Copper Creek no longer had its emails or QuickBooks records for the relevant period and alleged Copper Creek closed those accounts to conceal them, while Copper Creek said the accounts had lapsed for nonpayment.³ Copper Creek and Escoffie say Platinum's real grievance is with Triplett, whom Platinum nonsuited after he filed for bankruptcy, and that it is pursuing his husband and their company instead.⁴

Three months before trial Platinum asked for a spoliation instruction, the trial court agreed one was proper, and over Copper Creek's objection it instructed the jury that it could consider that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to Copper Creek, after which the jury awarded $150,000 for the labor theft.¹ Copper Creek and Escoffie raised eleven issues on appeal, including that Platinum's damages evidence should have been excluded and was legally insufficient, but the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) considered only the spoliation instruction, held it erroneous and harmful and remanded for a new trial in the interest of justice.² The Supreme Court heard argument on October 8, 2025.³ On April 17, 2026 it reversed and remanded to the court of appeals.⁴

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas); argued October 8, 2025; opinion by Justice Huddle issued April 17, 2026.⁵

• Valk:¹ whether the court of appeals erred by failing to conduct a harmless-error analysis of the whole record, including how an instruction directed only at Copper Creek could have harmed Escoffie, and whether it failed to analyze the appropriateness of a spoliation instruction.
• Copper Creek and Escoffie:² whether the court of appeals properly conducted a harm analysis and analyzed the spoliation instruction, and, on issues it did not reach, whether the trial court erred in admitting undisclosed damages evidence and whether the evidence supports the verdict and fees.

When multiple grounds for reversal are presented, a court of appeals must first address issues that would require rendition before ordering a remand, and a harm analysis requires consideration of the entire record as a whole.¹

Whether the court of appeals could remand without addressing rendition points.

Ron Valk (Petitioner): The court of appeals effectively treated the spoliation instruction as presumptively harmful without considering the substantial evidence supporting the verdict or whether an instruction directed only to Copper Creek could have prejudiced Escoffie.¹

Copper Creek and Escoffie (Respondents): The court of appeals properly analyzed harm and the instruction, correctly concluded that they did not spoliate, and its remand did not reach other raised issues, such as the admission of undisclosed damages evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence, that would require rendition if sustained.²

Valk argued that the court of appeals' harm analysis deepened a division among the intermediate courts on whole-record review.¹

• Court of appeals' shortcut. Asked if the court of appeals could order a new trial without addressing no-evidence points, petitioner's counsel said deciding on the instruction alone was not error, but remedy needs more. (Oral Argument, 0:15:00)
• Jury instruction. Asked why other remedies were insufficient, petitioner's counsel said unless jurors are instructed they may view missing evidence unfavorably, they would not know to draw that inference. (Oral Argument, 0:04:13; 0:06:45)
• Preservation. Asked if respondents preserved objections, petitioner's counsel said they never objected to discussing spoliation evidence before the jury and elicited related evidence, but did preserve the instruction objection. (Oral Argument, 0:08:16; 0:09:07)
• Not a live request. Respondent's counsel said the request for production was not live; the spoliation motion did not attach it or name QuickBooks, and no one asked for QuickBooks. (Oral Argument, 0:25:52)
• Devastating effect. On rebuttal, petitioner's counsel said losing the emails and QuickBooks records devastated development of the case in discovery and its presentation at trial. (Oral Argument, 0:40:51; 0:42:44)
• Specific objection. Asked if a more specific objection to the instruction was required, respondent's counsel said a full spoliation hearing already contested the issue, citing a Court precedent. (Oral Argument, 0:32:14; 0:33:11)

None noted

Holding

When multiple grounds for reversal are presented, appellate courts must first address issues that would require rendition, and the court of appeals erred in remanding for a new trial based on the spoliation instruction without doing so, and its harm analysis, which did not assess the record as a whole, was too underdeveloped to justify discarding the verdict.¹

Reasoning

The order of operations is mandatory, a remand in the interest of justice is rare and usually arises when the governing law changed during the case, and the court of appeals misunderstood Rule 43.3 and FieldTurf as giving it broad discretion to skip rendition points.² A remand is also not warranted merely because hindsight shows a party might have offered more evidence, and nothing in this record shows the instruction precluded Platinum from presenting evidence, since the case was on file nearly five years, Platinum retained but did not offer a damages expert and told the jury no other damages evidence was available.³ Thorough appellate review of the whole case facilitates a robust harm analysis, and even assuming the instruction was erroneous, which the Court did not decide, the court of appeals should have addressed factors pointing against harm as well as those supporting it.⁴

Disposition

Court of appeals' judgment reversed and the case remanded to that court, which may address the briefed but undecided issues under Rule 53.4.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Justice Huddle

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

Mandatory order of operations on appeal, rendition issues first, and harm assessed on the entire record.¹

Justice Huddle delivered the opinion of the Court, with no separate writings.¹