Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc.
364 S.W.3d 817
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Storms damaged Cruz's Dallas home leading to mold and water-damage remediation; Protech acted as contractor and Cruz signed work authorizations and insurance assignments.
- Chubb insured Cruz and investigated the claim, with multiple testing and adjustments, but the claim remained unresolved for years.
- Chubb funded some services (including dehumidification through Protech) and sought additional testing to evaluate remediation; payment and decisions were repeatedly delayed.
- By 2003 Chubb tendered policy limits; Protech had filed invoices totaling over $700k, and Cruz’s home was demolished two years later.
- Protec and Cruz sued Chubb and Cruz; jury found for Protec on several contract-related issues; the court of appeals partially affirmed and partly reversed; supreme court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTPA relief requires a prevailing party. | Cruz seeks restoration under 17.50(b)(3). | Cruz did not prevail or prove reliance. | Cruz not a prevailing party; DTPA relief denied. |
| Restoration under 17.50(b)(3) requires mutual restitution. | Restoration does not require return of value. | Restoration contemplates mutual restitution. | Restoration requires mutual restitution; Cruz failed to deduct value received. |
| Whether the main purpose doctrine supports Chubb’s promise to pay for dehumidification. | Chubb’s promise to pay was for Cruz’s benefit. | Promise to pay was for Chubb’s own benefit to gain time. | Evidence supports main purpose doctrine; Chubb’s promise enforceable. |
| Preservation of charge error concerning attorney’s fees. | Pretrial charge preserved error. | No clear ruling; error not preserved. | Issue not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; standard of review for legal sufficiency)
- Haas Drilling Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 456 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. 1970) (main purpose doctrine requires consideration and benefit to promisor)
- Lemmon v. Box, 20 Tex. 329 (Tex. 1857) (leading object doctrine for promises to pay debt of another)
- Gulf Liquid Fertilizer Co. v. Titus, 354 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1962) (main purpose doctrine applies where promisor's primary purpose is his own benefit)
- Kennedy v. Tex. Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 143 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. 1940) (rescission and restitution principles in DTPA context)
- Smith v. Baldwin, 611 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. 1980) (DTPA purpose to provide consumer relief without heavy proof burdens)