On May 29, 2026, Texas Supreme Court clarified an important procedural issue involving the Certificate of Merit requirement under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002 that affects claims against architects, engineers, and other licensed or registered design professionals. In Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg, 741 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2026), the Court held that when claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a Certificate of Merit, those claims may be reasserted through an amended petition—rather than a newly filed lawsuit—provided the underlying litigation remains pending.

Section 150.002 Still Requires Strict Compliance

The Certificate of Merit requirement requires a claimant asserting certain claims or errors or omissions against licensed or registered architects, engineers, surveyors, landscape architects, and other covered design professionals to file a certificate of merit with the complaint. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002. The certificate is an affidavit from a qualified licensed or registered professional identifying at least one negligent act, error, or omission that provides the factual basis for the claimant’s complaint.

The Texas Legislature enacted the certificate of merit statute to discourage unsupported professional liability claims and ensure that claims against design professionals have been reviewed by a qualified expert before litigation proceeds. Texas courts have consistently recognized the statute’s gatekeeping purpose, and failure to comply may result in dismissal of the claims against the covered professional, with or without prejudice, depending on the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

The Question Before the Court

The dispute arose from a lawsuit filed in 2016 concerning an allegedly defective residential renovation. Emily Lehmberg sued multiple parties involved in the project, including Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc., but did not include the Certificate of Merit for her claims against the licensed design professionals. Studio E. moved to dismiss the claims based on the Lehmberg’s failure to comply with Chapter 150. Lehmberg responded that a certificate of merit was unnecessary and that Studio E. had delayed too long in seeking dismissal. The trial court denied Studio E’s motion.

On appeal, however, the San Antonio Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion. The court held that the claims were subject to the certificate of merit requirement because they arose out of Studio E.’s provision of professional architectural services. The case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to dismiss the claims and determine whether the dismissal should be “with or without” prejudice.

While the appeal was pending, the litigation continued against the remaining defendants, and Lehmberg filed an amended petition reasserting her claims against Studio E., this time accompanied by a certificate of merit. After remand, the trial court dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted in the original petition, but permitted Lehmberg to proceed on the amended petition. Studio E. argued that Section 150.002 prohibited Lehmberg from reviving her claims through an amended pleading and instead required her to file a new lawsuit. The trial court rejected that argument, and the court of appeals affirmed.

The Texas Supreme Court granted review to determine whether Chapter 150 requires a plaintiff whose claims have been dismissed without prejudice to initiate a new lawsuit or whether those claims may instead be reasserted through an amended pleading in the pending action.

The Texas Supreme Court’s Decision

The Texas Supreme Court rejected Studio E.’s argument. The Court explained that a dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits. Instead, it generally restores the parties to the position they occupied before the claims were asserted, allowing those claims to be brought again. Because the underlying litigation remained pending against other defendants, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governing amended pleadings continued to apply. Once the claims against Studio E. had been dismissed without prejudice, they no longer existed in the pending case. Accordingly, the plaintiff could reassert those claims through an amended petition accompanied by a compliant Certificate of Merit.

The Court further reasoned that neither Section 150.002 nor the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require a claimant to file a separate lawsuit where the original action remains pending. Requiring a second lawsuit under those circumstances would create unnecessary procedural inefficiencies without advancing the Legislature’s purpose in enacting Chapter 150.

Studio E. also argued that allowing Lehmberg to proceed by amended petition would effectively circumvent Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002(g), which provides that Chapter 150 may not be construed to extend any applicable limitations period. The Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether the amended petition relates back to the original filing date for limitations purposes, leaving that issue for the trial court should Studio E. assert a limitations defense on remand.

Why This Decision Matters

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg resolves an important procedural question regarding the operation of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002. When claims against a licensed or registered design professional are dismissed without prejudice, and the underlying lawsuit remains pending, those claims may be reasserted through an amended petition accompanied by a compliant certificate of merit rather than through a newly filed lawsuit.

The practical significance of the decision extends beyond the procedural issue presented. Construction litigation frequently involves multiple parties—including owners, developers, contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, consultants, and insurers—whose claims arise from the same project and involve overlapping witnesses, documents, and discovery. Had the Court adopted Studio E.’s position, plaintiffs would have been required to initiate a separate lawsuit to pursue claims dismissed without prejudice, resulting in parallel litigation involving the same underlying facts. Instead, the Court adopted a more practical approach that promotes judicial efficiency while preserving Chapter 150’s gatekeeping function.

Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg, 741 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2026)

Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2026.  All rights reserved.  Any authorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.