Eric Drake v. Consumers County Mutual Insurance, and Travelers Indemnity Company, 05-13-00170-CV

Drake appeals a summary judgment ruling in a Dallas County suit arising from two separate auto accidents in 2005; the CCM and Travelers denied Drake’s uninsured motorist and related claims.
The case was severed from claims against Andrews and Sifuentes; Drake later added CCM and Travelers to the severed claims and sought relief based on statute of limitations.
The trial court granted summary judgment that Drake’s claims were barred by limitations; Drake then obtained a default judgment against Sifuentes, disposing of all claims.
Drake filed multiple recusal motions against several judges; those motions and related orders are central to issues on appeal.
Drake argued the federal filing tolled the limitations period, or that tolling doctrines or Craddock considerations required denial of summary judgment; the court rejected these tolling arguments.
The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice as to Travelers and upheld summary judgment against Drake on all limitations grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recusal-related orders were valid and preserved error	Drake contends judges lacked authority to hear or sign orders	CCM/Travelers argue recusal issues waived and orders moot	Drake waived error; recusal orders moot; issues overruled
Notice defect for summary judgment proceeding	Craddock notice required; non-movant denied hearing impact	Notice defect harmless where movant’s response considered	Harmless error; seventh issue overruled
Whether §1367(d) tolling extended the limitations period	Drake argues federal suit tolled state claims	1367(d) does not apply where dismissal was for noncompliance with court orders	§1367(d) not applicable; tolling denied
Whether the claims were barred by limitations and properly dismissed with prejudice	Limitations tolling and diligence should defeat dismissal	Evidence shows accrual on July 31, 2007 and no tolling; dismissal proper	Claims barred; summary judgment affirmed on limitations; dismissal with prejudice proper
Denial of Drake’s motion for new trial	Court misled him; Craddock should apply	No error; new trial denied within discretion and rule framework	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (causes accrual and tolling considerations for extra-contractual claims)
Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (burden on proof and accrual in tolling contexts)
Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp, 98 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2002) (Craddock applicability to late-responding movants clarified)
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (Craddock test for new trial applicability)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (accrual and discovery rules for tolling considerations)
Knott (Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott), 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (tolling and accrual under insurance claims)
Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. 1990) (purpose of statute of limitations; repose and evidence preservation)
Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary judgment standards and burdens)
Gant v. DeLeon, 786 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1990) (service diligence and tolling considerations)