Daniel A. Ramirez v. First Liberty Insurance Corporation
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12861
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In Feb 2009 Ramirez's car was rear-ended by Ernest Dyer; Ramirez did not sue Dyer but sued Dyer's insurer, First Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty).
- Ramirez's fourth amended petition asserted causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Liberty moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds.
- Ramirez, a pro se litigant, submitted an affidavit and Liberty correspondence asserting Liberty representatives told him his claim was approved and would be paid, but Liberty later declined some payments.
- The court examined whether Ramirez challenged every possible ground for summary judgment (Malooly rule) and whether his evidence raised more than a scintilla on the Insurance Code and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramirez preserved appellate error as to breach of contract and promissory estoppel | Ramirez argued Liberty misrepresented handling of his claim but did not brief specific summary-judgment grounds for these claims | Liberty argued appellant failed to negate all grounds because the trial court did not state its grounds | Waived — Ramirez failed to challenge all possible grounds; summary judgment as to these claims affirmed |
| Whether Ramirez may sue Liberty for breach of duty of good faith/fair dealing (third-party claimant) | Ramirez alleged Liberty made misrepresentations and acted in bad faith toward him | Liberty argued third-party claimant cannot bring bad-faith claim against liability insurer absent judgment or agreement establishing insured’s liability | Affirmed — third-party lacks standing to assert insurer bad-faith claim absent judgment/agreement |
| Whether Liberty violated Texas Insurance Code (misrepresentation/unfair practices) | Ramirez claimed Liberty misrepresented approval and promise to pay medical and repair bills | Liberty argued there is no evidence it misrepresented policy terms or promised payment under the policy; motion covered common misrepresentation element | Affirmed — Ramirez’s evidence did not show misrepresentation of policy benefits; summary judgment proper on alleged Insurance Code violations |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation claim survives summary judgment | Ramirez relied on Liberty statements that claim was approved and would be paid causing him to seek treatment | Liberty argued no evidence of false information supplied for plaintiff’s business guidance or of false statements | Affirmed — Ramirez produced no more than scintilla that false information was supplied or given for business guidance; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (appellant must negate all possible grounds when trial court does not specify grounds for summary judgment)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence summary judgment reviewed under legal-sufficiency standard; more than a scintilla required)
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (standard for traditional summary judgment)
- State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ollis, 768 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. 1989) (third-party claimant cannot directly enforce insurer’s liability policy absent judgment or agreement establishing insured’s obligation)
- Reule v. Colony Ins. Co., 407 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (third-party claimant lacks standing to sue insurer for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing)
- Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (discussing requirement to challenge each ground when multiple summary-judgment grounds asserted)