On September 2, 2022, Candace Moore was injured when a waterwall facade at the Downtown Aquarium in Houston collapsed; she sued several parties and, on August 28, 2024, five days before limitations expired, added Stanley Spurling & Hamilton, Inc. (SSH), a licensed engineering firm, based on 2020-2021 services. She attached no certificate of merit and alleged no time constraint.¹

SSH answered September 11, 2024 and objected; on September 26, twenty-nine days after the amended petition and after limitations ran, Moore filed a notice of certificate of merit alleging for the first time that time constraints prevented earlier filing. The trial court dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 2025.¹ The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a memorandum opinion on February 19, 2026.² Review was granted June 19, 2026.

Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals; granted June 19, 2026. Oral argument: Set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 2026.

1. Whether Section 150.002(c) requires the lack-of-time allegation in the same petition naming the engineer
2. Whether the court of appeals erred by following precedent conflicting with Crosstex and other courts¹

SSH (Petitioner): the exception applies only when the plaintiff both files within ten days of limitations expiring and alleges in the same petition that time constraints prevented a certificate; the court of appeals eliminated the second condition, and Epco Holdings and Arriaga should be overruled.¹

Moore (Respondent): her later notice satisfied the statute (Response to Petition).

SSH argued the decision conflicts with Crosstex and with multiple courts of appeals, and involves a statute of statewide importance; the court of appeals itself acknowledged an unresolved conflict.¹

None noted