MGA Insurance Co. v. Charles R. Chesnutt, P.C.
358 S.W.3d 808
Tex. App.2012Background
- MGA Insurance appeals a summary judgment that MGA take nothing against Charles R. Chesnutt, P.C. and Chesnutt.
- The underlying Johnson litigation involved a trust and sanctions against Chesnutt for discovery conduct; MGA defended Chesnutt under a malpractice policy.
- The Johnson judgment sanctioned Chesnutt and awarded fees and costs to Chesnutt; Chesnutt withdrew the sanctions award from the court registry.
- MGA paid Chesnutt’s defense costs and seeks to recover those costs from Chesnutt via assumpsit for money had and received and a declaratory judgment.
- MGA alleged Chesnutt’s entitlement to the sanctions award was improper and that MGA is entitled to reimbursement; Chesnutt and Chesnutt, P.C. denied liability and asserted defenses, including res judicata and collateral defenses.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chesnutt and Chesnutt, P.C.; MGA appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MGA can sustain a money had and received claim. | MGA argues it owns the sanction funds because it paid Chesnutt’s defense costs. | Chesnutt contends MGA never had title to the funds and the award was Chesnutt’s under the judgment. | There is a genuine factual issue as to ownership and entitlement. |
| Whether quasi-contract is barred by a written contract. | MGA contends the insurance policy does not govern the dispute and supports equitable relief. | Appellees rely on the existence of a contract to bar quasi-contract recovery. | Summary judgment improperly awarded; policy provisions not conclusively applicable. |
| Whether res judicata, collateral estoppel, or collateral attack bars MGA’s claim. | MGA contends it was not in privity with Chesnutt and MGA’s claim is not the same as the Johnson action. | Appellees argue res judicata and collateral defenses preclude MGA’s claim. | Appellees failed to prove elements of these defenses; defenses not conclusively established. |
| Whether Chesnutt, P.C. was entitled to summary judgment given it was not a party to the Johnson litigation. | MGA challenged Chesnutt, P.C.’s entitlement to summary judgment based on Johnson litigation involvement. | Chesnutt, P.C. asserted the same grounds as Chesnutt individually; MGA did not raise separate Rule 93/94 bases. | Issue not properly preserved for review; need not address separate grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997) (money had and received describes unjust enrichment relief)
- Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distrib., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (elements of money had and received; equity focus)
- Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1951) (definition and scope of money had and received)
- Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000) (quasi-contract limits when an express contract controls subject matter)
- Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.1996) (privity and claim preclusion requirements)
- Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. 2006) (summary judgment standards and record review)
- Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1996) (burden to prove elements of res judicata)