Hofer Builders, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company as Subrogee of United Rentals, Inc.
07-15-00117-CV
Tex. App.Jun 4, 2015Background
- Fireman’s Fund sued Hofer for damage to a forklift; Hofer failed to answer, resulting in default judgment granting unliquidated damages and attorney’s fees.
- Hofer’s insurer initially defended but later refused coverage; Fireman’s counsel extended deadlines while claim investigated.
- Hofer moved for new trial under Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines; trial court denied the motion.
- Hofer argues lack of conscious indifference and that the default resulted from a mistake/accident due to reliance on insurer/adjuster.
- Damages awarded were based on affidavits and documents Fireman’s submitted, which Hofer challenged as legally/factually insufficient to support unliquidated damages.
- Hofer appeals, seeking either reversal of the default judgment or reduction of unliquidated damages; Fireman’s response contests the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Hofer’s motion for new trial | Hofer (Plaintiff) argues Craddock elements were shown | Hofer (Defendant) contends mistake/accident, meritorious defense, no injury | Yes; Craddock elements met; abuse of discretion rejected the court's ruling |
| Whether the unliquidated damages award is legally/factually sufficient | Fireman’s evidence supports damages under Rule 243 | Evidence is merely conclusory and lacks causal nexus | No; damages evidence insufficient to support award |
Key Cases Cited
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (three-element standard for setting aside default judgments: mistake, meritorious defense, no undue prejudice)
- Sutherland v. Spencer, 376 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. 2012) (clarifies conscious indifference standard under Craddock)
- Evans, State Employees’ Workers’ Comp. Div., 889 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1994) (evidence must controvert factual assertions; absence of intentional failure is controlling)
- Angelo v. Champion Rest. Equip. Co., 713 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. 1986) (recognizes considerations for damages and abuse of discretion standards)
- Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat’l. Ass’n v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. 1999) (unliquidated damages proof must show causal nexus; review of damages)