# Spurling v. Moore

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 26-0307

**Spurling v. Moore, No. 26-0307, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Must a plaintiff suing a licensed engineer allege in the same petition that time constraints prevented filing a certificate of merit before the 30-day extension in Section 150.002(c) applies?**

Practice areas: professional liability, civil procedure

## Key issues

- Must a plaintiff suing a licensed engineer allege in the same petition that time constraints prevented filing a certificate of merit before the 30-day extension in Section 150.002(c) applies?
- Was the Fourteenth Court of Appeals wrong to follow precedent that conflicts with Crosstex Energy Services v. Pro Plus and with the Beaumont and Dallas courts?

## Factual History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 12).

## Procedural History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 9, 12). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a memorandum opinion on February 19, 2026 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 9). Review was granted June 19, 2026.

## Issues Presented
(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 courts (Petition for Review, PDF p. 11).

## Legal Arguments
**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 (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 6, 14). **Moore (Respondent):** her later notice satisfied the statute (Response to Petition).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 14).

## Practice Area Tags
professional-liability, civil-procedure

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
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.

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/26-0307. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.