## Facts

- Debbie Esquivel rented a room at a Baytown motel on June 19, 1994, traveling with a U-Haul truck containing personal property and towing her car.
- Esquivel asked the motel clerk where to park and was told to park adjacent to the motel and was assured the vehicles would be safe because of motel security.
- The next morning, Esquivel discovered both the U-Haul and her car had been stolen.
- Esquivel timely sued the motel, initially believing it was the sole provider of security.
- During discovery, Esquivel learned a private security company, Murray Guard, Inc., provided security services at the motel under contract.
- Esquivel added Murray Guard as a defendant on August 30, 1996, more than two years after the theft.
- Murray Guard moved for summary judgment on limitations and argued no tolling or relation-back doctrine applied.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Murray Guard, severed the claims against it, and required a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement of taxable court costs pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether limitations barred Esquivel’s tort and contract claims against Murray Guard, added more than two years after the theft.
2. Whether the discovery rule deferred accrual or otherwise avoided limitations where Esquivel knew of the theft but did not know the identity of the security provider.
3. Whether equitable estoppel, misidentification-type doctrines, or a joint enterprise theory permitted relation back from the timely suit against the motel to the later-added security company.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring a supersedeas bond to supersede taxable court costs.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Murray Guard on limitations grounds.
- The court held the discovery rule did not apply because the injury (the theft) was immediately known and was not inherently undiscoverable.
- The court rejected relation-back and equitable theories because the amendment added a new defendant after limitations, without a showing of timely notice to Murray Guard or facts supporting concealment or unavoidable mistake.
- The court affirmed the order requiring a supersedeas bond for taxable court costs.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish the defense and negate any pleaded tolling doctrine as a matter of law.
- The discovery rule is a narrow exception that defers accrual only when the injury is inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable; it does not generally delay accrual merely because the plaintiff does not yet know all potentially responsible parties.
- Relation-back and misidentification doctrines are limited; adding a different defendant after limitations generally does not relate back absent circumstances such as timely notice to the added party and a reasonable, non-prejudicial mistake about identity.
- When the gravamen of the claim is negligent performance of security services, characterizing the claim as contract-based does not, by itself, avoid limitations without a valid accrual or tolling basis.
- A trial court may require a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement of a judgment for taxable court costs pending appeal, absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that Esquivel’s late joinder of the security contractor was barred by limitations because the theft was immediately discoverable and the law did not extend accrual or permit relation back based on later learning the contractor’s identity; the requirement of a supersedeas bond for taxable costs was also upheld.


Esquivel v. Murray Guard, Inc., 992 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)