The Subrogation Strategist

In Encotech Eng'g Consultants, Inc. v. Miramon, No. 15-25-00173-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 9117, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifteenth District (Court of Appeals) the plaintiff filed suit against several engineering firms, including Encotech Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Encotech). Encotech filed a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals considered whether a certificate of merit filed against Encotech was deficient because it made collective assertions of negligence against all defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Encotech’s motion to dismiss, holding that the certificate of merit failed to identify the specific conduct of the defendant or attest that the named firms were involved in all aspects of the work.

In June 2023, Ian Miramon, a fireman, was inspecting a fire truck at an Austin fire station when he was allegedly struck in the head by the blade of an industrial-sized ceiling fan, knocking him off the truck to the concrete below. Mr. Miramon and his wife, Caroline Miramon (collectively, the Miramons), sued defendant Encotech and several other entities for negligence and gross negligence relating to the design, construction, and inspection of the ceiling fan and fire station. The Miramons attached a certificate of merit from a professional engineer to their petition. Encotech moved to dismiss, arguing that the certificate impermissibly made collective assertions of negligence against Encotech and the other engineering firms. The trial court denied the motion, and Encotech filed an interlocutory appeal.

The Court of Appeals explained that, under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002, a claimant seeking damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed engineer must file a certificate of merit with the complaint. The certificate must set forth, specifically, for each theory of recovery, the negligence or other error or omission of the professional and the factual basis for each such claim. The purpose of the certificate is to allow the trial court to determine that the claim is not frivolous, and the failure to file a compliant certificate results in dismissal.

The court noted that Section 150.002(b) does not allow for collective assertions of negligence. Instead, the certificate must identify each defendant and that defendant’s specific conduct. Where there are multiple defendants, the court must be able to determine which acts or omissions should be ascribed to which company, or the certificate must state that the companies were involved in all aspects of the work.

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeals found the certificate deficient. The engineer referred to Encotech and the other engineering firms only collectively as “the relevant party(ies),” and attested that they collectively failed to design, install, construct, inspect, warn of, and remedy hazardous conditions at the fire station. Nowhere did the certificate describe the specific conduct of any individual firm. The court also rejected the Miramons’ argument that the certificate attested that the firms were involved in all aspects of the work. The certificate stated only that the firms were “known or reasonably believed to have worked upon the design and/or construction” of the fire station. The court reasoned that this language meant only that the firms worked on the station in some capacity, and that some firms may have designed but not built the station or worked on only certain parts of it.

Although the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, it did not order dismissal with prejudice. Relying on the Supreme Court of Texas’s recent decision in Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg,^[1] the court noted that the Miramons could file an amended petition and a compliant certificate if the trial court dismissed their original petition without prejudice. The court remanded the case to the trial court to decide whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice and expressly declined to address a potential limitations issue.

The Encotech case confirms that, in Texas, a certificate of merit must specifically tie each defendant professional to the alleged errors or omissions. Lumping multiple engineering firms together or stating only that they worked on a project in some capacity will not suffice. Subrogation professionals pursuing claims against design professionals in Texas should ensure that their experts identify each defendant’s specific conduct and its factual basis or, where appropriate, expressly attest that the defendants were involved in all aspects of the work. Doing so at the outset may avoid costly motion practice and potential limitations issues.

^[1] No. 24-0286, 2026 Tex. LEXIS 473 (May 29, 2026).