C. Creighton Carr, II


Biography

Mr. Carr grew up abroad, living in Saudi Arabia, Norway and Malaysia before returning home to Texas where he attended college at Texas A&M University and law school at Baylor University. For more than fifteen years, Mr. Carr has focused his practice on the defense of complex personal injury, premises liabilty and products liability claims, consistently obtaining favorable results at both the trial and the appellate levels. Mr. Carr's practice is built on understanding his clients’ goals, and developing strategies to ensure that those goals are achieved, all while ensuring his clients are thoroughly advised so they can move forward together as partners in the litigation process.

Education

  • Texas A&M University - B.A. Biology & Chemistry (1998)
  • Baylor Law School - J.D. (2002)

Bar Admissions

  • State Bar of Texas (2002)
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
  • Weingarten Realty Mgmt. Co. and Scottsdale Ins. Co. vs. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

    Successfully defended, at both the trial and appellate levels, a subrogation claim stemming from an insurer's refusal to defend and indemnify a stranger to its policy even though, under the Eight Corners Doctrine, the facts plead against that stranger in the underlying lawsuit, if they had been true, would have brought them within the coverage of the policy. In affirming the trial court's granting of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals found, for the first time by a Texas state court, that an insurer, in evaluating its duty to defend, may look beyond the eight corners of the petition and the insurance policy to answer the fundamental question of whether the party seeking the defense qualifies as an "insured" under the policy.

    Read MGA's Brief here.
    Read the Court of Appeals' opinion here.

  • Huston vs. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    MGA successfully defended a personal injury case arising from a rear-end automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the accident she sustained severe personal injuries to her head, neck, back and knee. Subsequent to the accident Plaintiff had knee surgery, back surgery and neck surgery. She also claimed to have suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff's medical bills were in excess of $300,000. At trial Plaintiff asked the jury to award her more than $18 million for her injuries. MGA argues that Plaintiff's injuries were grossly exaggerated and/or unrelated to the accident. After trial Plaintiff obtained a judgment for only $33,000, which was significantly less than the amount that had been offered prior to trial.

    Read MGA's Brief here.
    Read the Court of Appeals' opinion here.

  • Jessica Grigg, et al. v. LG Electroncis USA, Inc., et al.

    On interlocutory appeal, obtained a reversal of the trial court's denial of LG's motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation brought wrongful death claims in Angelina County related to the death of their biological father. Many years before the incident, however, the decedent's parental rights as to each of the Plaintiffs had been terminated by court orders. LG sought summary judgment from the trial court on the Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims on the grounds that the orders terminating parental rights divested the Plaintiffs of standing to assert wrongful death claims related to the decedent's death. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, but, finding existing caselaw created a substantial ground for difference of opinion on that issue, entered an order permitting an interlocutory appeal. After considering the parties' briefs and hearing oral arguments, the Court of Appeals agreed that a court order terminating parental rights divests the affected parties of certain legal rights with respect to one another, including the right to bring statutory wrongful death claims for one another's death. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals entered judgment reversing the trial court's order denying summary judgment.

    Read MGA's Brief here.
    Read the Court of Appeals' opinion here.