The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently conditionally granted mandamus relief in favor of our client, a commercial motor vehicle driver, in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit where the trial court declined to bifurcate the trial in accordance with Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 72 allows for a defendant in a commercial motor vehicle collision case to bifurcate the jury’s consideration of the claims against the defendant into two phases, whereby consideration of compensatory and exemplary damages issues are determined separately, allowing a defendant to avoid unnecessary injection of punitive evidence into the determination of whether the defendant was negligent. 

Following a timely motion to bifurcate the trial filed by the driver, the plaintiff opposed the motion because it was not filed by the employer defendant. The Plaintiff further argued that Chapter 72 only applies to commercial motor vehicle companies, the employer defendants, not to other defendants in the case, despite statutory language to the contrary. The trial court agreed and denied the driver’s motion to bifurcate on the basis that the driver “will always be on trial first and gets no benefit for a bifurcated trial.”

In a case of first impression on the issue, the Court of Appeals agreed that mandamus relief was warranted, noting “the plain language of chapter 72 confirms the Legislature’s intent to allow a motion to bifurcate to be filed by a defendant driver, such as Khalaf” and that the statute at issue “makes no distinction between defendant drivers and defendant owners or employers.” 

The Court of Appeals also dispelled the argument that Section 72.54(a) somehow precludes application of Section 72.052 or bifurcation as a whole, holding that “section 72.054(a) does not, by its terms, limit section 72.052; it only incorporates the same deadline for an employer stipulation as for a motion to bifurcate.” As the Court explained, “[e]ither alone or in context, section 72.054(a) does not impose a limit on the type of defendant who may file a section 72.052(a) motion to bifurcate.” 

Finally, the Court of Appeals rebutted the plaintiff’s argument that “it would be nonsensical for the employee defendant to make the Chapter 72 election, because it provides them no benefit,” instead agreeing with our argument that “bifurcation could benefit a driver defendant by splitting the matter of exemplary damages from the matter of compensatory damages.”

Our client was represented in the trial court by partner H. Mark Burck and in the Court of Appeals by partner Andrew J. Upton. If you are considering mandamus action in a Chapter 72 or other commercial motor vehicle case, please do not hesitate to contact them. 

The case is In re Khalaf, No. 04-25-00836-CV, 2026 WL 686521 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2026, no pet.).