in Re Stacey Bent and Mark Bent
487 S.W.3d 170
Tex.2016Background
- Stacey and Mark Bent sued USAA after Hurricane Ike damage, alleging breach of homeowners policy and violations of the Texas Insurance Code; jury found no breach but found a Chapter 541 violation and awarded mental-anguish, diminished-value damages, and trial attorney’s fees.
- The trial judge granted a new trial on five grounds: (1) breach finding contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence (prompt-payment issue); (2) USAA violated a limine order regarding city-variance evidence; (3) diminished-value award unsupported; (4) failure to award appellate attorney’s fees; (5) mental-anguish damages required a finding of ‘‘knowingly’’ (not reviewed here).
- USAA sought mandamus relief; the court of appeals conditionally granted relief, directing the trial court to vacate the new-trial order and enter judgment on the jury verdict.
- The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the trial court’s stated reasons satisfied the facial specificity requirements established in Columbia and United Scaffolding and whether the court of appeals properly performed Toyota merits review.
- The Supreme Court held three of the trial court’s bases facially insufficient under Columbia/United Scaffolding and agreed the record did not support the limine/variance basis; it denied the Bents’ mandamus petition.
Issues
| Issue | Bent's Argument | USAA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new trial was warranted because jury’s no-breach finding was against great weight (prompt-payment provision) | Bents: USAA failed to pay within 5 business days after notifying it would pay, so jury finding is against the weight of the evidence | USAA: Records and testimony show payments accompanied approvals or were timely; August 2010 letter was a settlement offer, not an unconditional payment obligation | Court: Trial court’s explanation was facially insufficient—vague about which notification triggered the 5-day duty; court of appeals correctly found record did not support trial court’s rationale |
| Whether USAA violated the limine order by eliciting and arguing variance-related evidence | Bents: USAA’s questioning and closing improperly suggested they could/should have obtained a variance, violating limine and prejudicing jury | USAA: Questions concerned whether variances are available and whether Bents sought one; testimony was admitted without objection and appropriate for closing | Court: Limine was granted only in part; record shows no objection and USAA did not violate the order; court of appeals correctly found no support for trial court’s basis |
| Whether $150,000 diminished-value award was unsupported | Bents: Award was supported by evidence (they argued very large diminution) | USAA: Award was unsupported; could have been zero | Court: Trial court’s statement that award "seems arbitrary" is conclusory and facially insufficient because it cites no specific evidence undermining jury’s verdict; abuse of discretion to order new trial on this basis |
| Whether jury’s $0 award of appellate attorney’s fees warranted new trial | Bents: Statutes entitle prevailing plaintiffs to fees, including appellate fees, so $0 is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence | USAA: Jury heard fee evidence and could find fees were not proven reasonable/necessary | Court: Trial court’s rationale relied on legal conclusions and lacked factual specificity about what fee evidence was presented; facially insufficient basis for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (trial courts must give an understandable, reasonably specific explanation for granting a new trial)
- In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012) (new-trial reason must be legally appropriate and specific to case facts; factual-sufficiency grounds require pointers to how evidence undermines the verdict)
- In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2013) (appellate courts may conduct merits review of facially valid new-trial orders; mandamus relief if record does not support trial court’s rationale)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus review applies abuse-of-discretion standard)