In re Britt
529 S.W.3d 93
Tex. App.2016Background
- Britt injured in a July 5, 2011 car accident and demanded underinsured-motorist benefits from State Farm on February 19, 2015; State Farm denied coverage on March 26, 2015.
- Britt sued State Farm on October 15, 2015; State Farm was served March 20, 2016 but did not timely answer.
- A default-judgment hearing was held April 15, 2016; the court heard testimony and awarded Britt $50,000 in damages and $5,000 in attorney’s fees.
- After notice, State Farm moved to set aside the default judgment and for a new trial, asserting clerical error, unverified pleadings, and for the first time at hearing a statute-of-limitations defense.
- The trial court granted the motion, set aside the default judgment, ordered a new trial, and awarded Britt $1,500 in attorney’s fees.
- Britt petitioned for a writ of mandamus requesting reinstatement of the default judgment, arguing the trial court abused its discretion under the Craddock standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in setting aside default judgment under Craddock (mistake/not intentional; meritorious defense; no harm to plaintiff) | Britt: State Farm did not establish a meritorious defense; failure to answer was clerical but default judgment was supported by hearing evidence | State Farm: failure to answer due to clerical error; pleadings unverified; asserted denial of coverage and statute-of-limitations defense | Court: Granting new trial was an abuse of discretion because State Farm failed to show a meritorious defense (Craddock element unmet) |
| Whether statute-of-limitations defense barred Britt’s claim | Britt: Claim timely; suit filed within four years of accrual | State Farm: argued claims were time-barred (raised at hearing only) | Court: Claim accrues at insurer’s denial (Mar 26, 2015); suit filed Oct 15, 2015 so timely; limitations defense not properly pled or supported and is meritless |
| Whether unverified pleadings defeated default judgment | Britt: Default judgment based on hearing testimony and court’s file, not solely on pleadings | State Farm: objected that pleadings were unverified, citing Seib v. Bekker | Court: Seib inapplicable; objection concerned unsworn pleadings while judgment rested on hearing evidence, so no meritorious defense shown |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate remedy | Britt: No adequate appellate remedy because order setting aside default is not reviewable on appeal while trial court has plenary power | State Farm: (implicitly) remedy by further proceedings/new trial | Court: Mandamus appropriate—Britt lacks adequate remedy at law since order is not reviewable on appeal during court’s plenary power |
Key Cases Cited
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (three-part test for setting aside default judgments)
- Dir., State Employees Workers’ Comp. Div. v. Evans, 889 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1994) (standards for reviewing new-trial orders and Craddock application)
- Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1966) (motion to set aside default must allege facts showing meritorious defense and be supported by affidavits)
- Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey, 858 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. 1993) (prima facie proof required for meritorious defense)
- Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2009) (meritorious-defense standard for motions for new trial)
- Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co., 682 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1984) (orders setting aside default judgments during plenary period are generally not appealable)