Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company v. Cristil Rogers
455 S.W.3d 161
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Farm Bureau sued insured Cristil Rogers for declaratory relief, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify her in an underlying tort (Dominguez) suit and requesting court costs and attorney’s fees under the UDJA.
- Rogers answered, opposing summary judgment and seeking court costs and attorney’s fees under the DTPA, though she asserted no DTPA substantive claims.
- Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment; Rogers opposed but did not file a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court issued an order denying Farm Bureau’s motion, stating Farm Bureau has a duty to defend and indemnify Rogers, taxing court costs to each party, and containing a Mother Hubbard clause denying "any and all relief" not expressly granted; the order did not expressly address attorney’s fees.
- The court of appeals dismissed Farm Bureau’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding an order denying summary judgment cannot be final unless the opponent files a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, reasoning the order was not final because it did not resolve competing claims for attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farm Bureau) | Defendant's Argument (Rogers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order denying a motion for summary judgment is final and appealable when it disposes of claims but the opposing party did not file a cross-motion for summary judgment | The order disposes of all parties and claims under Lehmann; absence of a cross-motion does not prevent finality | The order is not final because it failed to resolve competing claims for attorney’s fees | Not final: order did not resolve attorney’s-fee claims and thus did not finally dispose of all parties and claims |
| Whether a Mother Hubbard clause or taxation of court costs can be read to deny unmentioned attorney’s-fee claims and create finality | Mother Hubbard clause and taxing costs implicitly deny fees and indicate finality | Mother Hubbard clauses and cost awards do not resolve fee claims; court must expressly dispose of fees | Mother Hubbard clause and cost taxation, without evidence of intent, do not dispose of attorney’s-fee claims or confer finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality requires either actual disposition of all claims and parties or unmistakable language showing finality)
- McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001) (taxing court costs does not dispose of an attorney’s-fee claim; absence of an express fee ruling defeats finality)
- Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conserv. Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (UDJA attorney’s fees may be awarded even where plaintiff does not substantially prevail)