In Drilex Sys., Inc. v. Flores, 1 S.W.3d 112, 122-23 (Tex. 1999), Jorge Flores, a husband and father, was catastrophically injured. He, his wife, and his children sued two defendants. All the plaintiffs settled with one defendant. In the trial against the remaining defendant, the jury awarded damages to each of the plaintiffs. The Court was called upon to determine how the settlement credit required by section 33.012(b) should be applied. We held that "under the plain language of section 33.011(1), the term 'claimant' in section 33.012(b)(1) includes all of the family members." The Court rejected the arguments that the Short family makes in the case before us today. The Court said that "if the Legislature had intended that each of the parties seeking recovery for damages for the same person be treated as individual claimants, it could easily have written the statute" to say so. The Court determined for the first time how sections 33.011(1) and 33.012(b) work together in a case involving derivative plaintiffs suing multiple defendants because of a family member's injury. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 112. Based on how we interpreted section 33.011(1), and the potential unfairness to nonsettling defendants who have no control over how plaintiffs may design settlements to avoid full settlement credits, we concluded that the entire family was one claimant for purposes of applying a settlement credit under section 33.012(b). Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 122. In Drilex, we applied Chapter 33 to a suit in which an injured worker, Jorge Flores, and his family sought recovery for Flores' injuries. The Flores family settled with one defendant. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 115. Specifically, the Flores children settled individually with the defendant for different amounts. The parents jointly accepted a lump sum to settle their claims. And Jorge, individually, received a settlement amount. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 120-21. The jury then awarded the Flores family members damages from another defendant. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 116. The issue was whether, under section 33.012(b), the Flores family members were individual "claimants" so that the trial court should have credited each individual's jury award with the amount for which he or she settled, or whether the Flores family members were collectively one claimant so that the trial court should have credited the aggregate jury award with all the amounts paid in the settlements. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 121. The Court concluded that the entire family was one claimant. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 122. In Drilex, we professed to follow section 33.011(1)'s plain language to conclude that "claimant" under section 33.012(b) means all family members suing for damages arising from another family member's injury or death. But, in doing so, we did not adhere to our statutory- construction rule that we must not construe statutes in a way that would lead to an absurd result. C&H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson, 903 S.W.2d 315, 322 n.5 (Tex. 1994). In section 33.011(1), the Legislature defined "claimant" in the first sentence as "a party seeking recovery of damages pursuant to the provisions of section 33.001 the proportionate-responsibility statute." However, instead of applying that definition in Drilex, we relied on section 33.011(1)'s second sentence to define claimant. Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 122. The second sentence explains that, when someone sues because he or she has suffered a loss caused by another person's injury or death, "claimant includes both that other person and the party seeking recovery of damages pursuant to the provisions of section 33.001." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 33.011(1). Based on that sentence, we concluded in Drilex that, for settlement-credit purposes under section 33.012(b), "the Legislature defined claimant to include both the injured party and the party or parties seeking recovery of damages for injury to that person." Drilex, 1 S.W.3d at 123.