findings to support its statute of repose defenses but challenged the jury’s finding that the acid addition system was not designed by an Occidental employee who was a licensed or registered engineer. Occidental asserted that it conclusively proved the opposite. It further asserted that it conclusively proved alternative elements of its statute of repose defense on which it failed to request a jury finding: that the system was planned by an Occidental employee licensed in engineering and that it was inspected by an Occidental employee licensed in engineering. A statute of repose provides an affirmative defense, and Occidental bore the burden of proving all factual requisites to the application of the statutes of repose. See Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); Nexen Inc. v. Gulf Interstate Eng’g Co., 224
holding defendant bears burden of establishing affirmative defense of official immunity holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense holding that the introduction of a psychiatric examination was harmless even though the state bore the burden of establishing future dangerousness holding that statute was one of repose because it embodies the most distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose the barring of the right to bring an action rather than the remedy prescribed holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose