Cunningham v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
352 S.W.3d 519
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Cunningham sued Zurich and JUA for breach of contract tied to a disputed settlement in a medical malpractice case.
- May 23, 2008 email proposed $650,000 plus funds in court registry in exchange for Cunningham's release; Haroona not clearly included.
- Parties disputed whether a final agreement existed and whether Haroona was included.
- Rule 11 required a signed, written agreement; dispute over whether email constituted an enforceable Rule 11 agreement.
- Trial court granted Zurich/JUA summary judgments; Cunningham appealed; underlying malpractice judgment and post-judgment negotiations are relevant to the contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the trial court err in granting summary judgment for Zurich? | Cunningham argues there was a valid Rule 11 agreement | Zurich contends email was merely an offer and not signed; no enforceable contract | No error; Rule 11 not satisfied; contract not enforceable |
| Did the trial court err by denying Cunningham's summary judgment against Zurich? | Cunningham seeks judgment on contract claim | Zurich's position defeats existence of a contract | Reversed? actually affirmed in favor of Zurich; issue overruled by holding no contract exists |
| Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for JUA? | Oral agreement via Carey, later echoed by Grabouski email, could satisfy Rule 11 | Email not signed; no writing meeting Rule 11; no enforceable contract | No error; JUA proved no enforceable Rule 11 contract; summary judgment proper |
| Did the trial court err by denying Cunningham's summary judgment against JUA? | Cunningham claims entitlement to judgment based on agreement with JUA | JUA denied enforceable agreement; Rule 11 compliance lacking | Reaffirmed that no enforceable Rule 11 contract with JUA; verdict stands |
| Is the transfer of venue to Tarrant County reviewable? | Transfer for convenience should be reviewable given improper venue | Garza v. Garcia and statute preclude review of convenience transfers | Not reviewable under Garza; order affirmed on venue transfer grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984) (Rule 11 applied to settlement agreements; writing requirement emphasized)
- Guidry v. Environment Procedures, Inc., 282 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (Treatises and writings; Rule 11 enforcement considerations)
- Coale v. Scott, 331 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (Rule 11 applicability to enforcement post-judgment proceedings)
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Settlement agreements may contain all material terms; writing/signature required by Rule 11)
- CherCo Props., Inc. v. Law, Snakard & Gambill, P.C., 985 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (Material terms and release structure; Rule 11 context)
- Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (Elements of summary judgment; evidence review standards)
- London Mkt. Cos. v. Schattman, 811 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1991) (Enforceability of settlement terms under Rule 11 after dispute arises)
- Garza v. Garcia, 137 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. 2004) (Reviewability of convenience transfers; no requirement to show findings for appeal)