David Eoff v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 461 S.W.3d 648

Background

In 2008 Eoff collided with Cabaniss. Safeco denied coverage for Cabaniss’s claim and Cabaniss then pursued reimbursement from Central Mutual, which paid Cabaniss and sought subrogation from Eoff.
Central Mutual demanded reimbursement; Eoff proposed using DPS Form SR-19 (an installment agreement) to avoid license suspension and began paying $75/month in June 2009.
Eoff signed the SR-19 in October 2010; Central Mutual signed and filed it with the DPS in November 2010. Parties stipulated Eoff paid $2,525 total; payments later stopped in Aug. 2012.
Central Mutual sued in Aug. 2012 for breach of the installment agreement. A jury found a valid contract, found Eoff breached, and awarded $5,519.25 in damages. Trial court entered judgment on that verdict.
On appeal Eoff argued (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Central Mutual failed to exhaust DPS administrative remedies; (2) no enforceable contract; (3) Central Mutual wasn’t owner/holder of the note and insufficient proof of breach; and (4) damages were unsupported and improperly accelerated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eoff)	Defendant's Argument (Central Mutual)	Held
Whether court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Central Mutual failed to exhaust DPS remedies	DPS has exclusive jurisdiction over SR-19 matters; Central Mutual had to pursue administrative suspension remedies before suing	The Act/regulations do not make DPS the exclusive arbiter of fault, damages, default, or entitlement to judicial relief	Court: DPS lacked exclusive jurisdiction; exhaustion not required; trial court had jurisdiction
Whether SR-19 created an enforceable contract	SR-19 alone (unsigned at first) was not a binding settlement; Cabaniss didn’t sign; Central Mutual lacked authorization to sign absent proof to DPS	Parties manifested mutual assent: Eoff proposed SR-19, signed it, Central Mutual signed and sought reimbursement — creating a binding contract between them	Court: SR-19 was an enforceable contract between Eoff and Central Mutual
Whether Central Mutual was owner/holder of the promissory note and whether evidence supports breach	Central Mutual failed to show it owns the note (payee named is Cabaniss) and did not prove holder status	The installment agreement (non-negotiable) is governed by contract law; Central Mutual has standing as the party seeking reimbursement and evidence supports breach	Court: Evidence sufficient to establish Central Mutual’s right to sue and that Eoff breached the agreement
Whether damages awarded ($5,519.25) were supported or improperly included accelerated balance	Central Mutual failed to give default/acceleration notice; thus may recover only past-due installments, not full balance	Central Mutual argued breach entitled it to recover damages resulting from missed payments	Court: No proof of anticipatory repudiation or acceleration; only past-due installments recoverable. Jury award legally insufficient; suggested remittitur of $4,319.25 (leaving $1,200) or new trial if remittitur not accepted

Key Cases Cited

City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. 2013) (agency exclusive jurisdiction and exhaustion principles)
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (statutory/regulatory construction to determine agency jurisdiction)
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (exhaustion/administrative-review principles)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for jury findings)
Pollack v. Pollack, 39 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1931) (options for damages on anticipatory breach)
Williamson v. Dunlap, 693 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1985) (rule limiting recovery on installment obligations absent acceleration)