Gilbert Kerlin

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Ballis' claims are barred by the statute of limitations because the tolling provision does not apply to Kerlin, who was not absent from Texas under the long‑arm business statute, and because fraudulent concealment does not toll when the plaintiffs could have discovered the wrongdoing with reasonable diligence. Justice Brister filed a concurring opinion contesting the majority's reliance on Vaughn v. Deitz.