452 S.W.3d 57
Tex. App.2014Background
- Highport marina damaged by a June 2007 flood; policy obtained differed from Highport’s request for blanket, replacement-cost coverage with no sublimits or coinsurance penalties.
- Insurance Alliance (broker) and Bowood (London broker) were involved in procuring Lloyd’s coverage; Bowood submitted a tailored underwriting submission rather than the underlying application documents.
- A jury found Insurance Alliance breached its contract to procure a $15 million blanket policy and found multiple parties negligent, with liability shares of Allianz 45%, CRC 40%, Bowood 10%, and Lloyd’s 5% for Highport’s injury.
- Judgment awarded Highport $8,738,598 against Insurance Alliance for breach of contract, with Bowood take-nothing on other claims; CRC was severed; Highport appealed and Allianz cross-appealed.
- Damages issue addressed whether the evidence supported the $8.3 million property damages and $438,598 business-interruption damages identified in Question 15; the court upheld the damage awards in light of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages sufficiency for Question 15(b) and (c) | Highport asserts sufficient evidence showed $8.3M (property) and $438,598 BI. | Allianz argues no evidence or insufficient evidence supports these figures. | Evidence supports the damages findings. |
| Attorney’s fees segregation | Highport segregated recoverable fees from non-recoverable ones against Allianz. | Allianz contends no proper segregation; fees improperly awarded. | Jur y evidence supported $2.7M in fees against Allianz; segregation upheld. |
| Bowood liability under insurance-code claims | Bowood caused or contributed via misrepresentations; Bowood liable under insurance code. | Bowood argues no deceptive acts; limited/direct contact issues. | Evidence supports Bowood not liable; jury findings upheld. |
| Election/one-satisfaction rule for damages | Highport could pursue both contract and tort theories concurrently for a single injury. | One-satisfaction rule bars concurrent recovery; pick greatest recovery. | Court rejected concurrent recovery; upheld breach-of-contract recovery and denied Bowood liability; Custom Leasing not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinty v. Hennen, 372 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2012) (damages must be proven reasonable; review of reasonableness matters)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (clear standard for legal-sufficiency review; substantial evidence)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (segregation of attorney’s fees requirement; recoverable claims)
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (one-satisfaction rule governs recovery across theories for a single injury)
- Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (coverage interpretation considerations when terms are disputed)
- DMC Valley Ranch L.L.C. v. HPSC, Inc., 315 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (separate questions of fact for multiple contracts; segregation of fees context)