National Security Fire & Casualty Company v. Rene Lampson and Justina Henriquez
09-15-00299-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Rene Lampson and his wife Justina sued their insurer, National Security Fire & Casualty Company, after Hurricane Ike damaged their Jefferson County home; they alleged breach of policy, bad faith, statutory insurance claims, fraud, and sought attorney’s fees.
- National inspected the home in 2007 (underwriting) and denied Lampson’s September 2008 claim after an independent adjuster’s report concluded repair costs were below the $1,000 deductible; insurer relied on that report to deny the claim.
- Lampson engaged SETRPC for disaster assistance; SETRPC later executed a subrogation/assignment agreement with Lampson and demolished and rebuilt the home in 2012 after determining repair exceeded its cap.
- At trial, experts for Lampson (an adjuster-review expert and a structural engineer relying on an inspector’s report and forensic weather data) testified that Hurricane Ike caused new structural and interior damage and that National’s investigation was inadequate.
- The jury found National breached the policy, knowingly committed unfair/deceptive acts, breached good faith, and committed fraud; awarded past damages ($56,700), extra statutory/mental-anguish-type damages ($100,000 and $10,000), and substantial attorney’s fees; the trial court entered judgment and National appealed.
- On appeal, National raised seven issues including standing/assignment, ownership/community-property questions, admissibility of expert testimony, refusal to give a spoliation instruction, sufficiency of damages evidence, election of remedies/double recovery, and the attorney’s fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lampson) | Defendant's Argument (National) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standing / assignment of rights | Lampson retained his right to sue; SETRPC received only assigned proceeds and a license to sue in Lampson’s name per subrogation agreement | SETRPC obtained Lampson’s rights and funds; Lampson lacked standing because he assigned rights to SETRPC | Court: Agreement assigned proceeds, not exclusive causes of action; Lampson had standing; MDL and trial court denial of dismissal affirmed |
| 2. Ownership / community-property interest | Home was purchased during marriage and is community property (both spouses owned interest) | Deed transfers (daughter’s deed) show Lampson had only half interest; insurability/limits should apply accordingly | Court: Presumption of community property unrebutted; Lampson and Justina owned interests; insurer’s argument rejected |
| 3. Expert admissibility (Shipman) | Engineer relied on qualified field inspector, photos, and site-specific forensic weather data; methodology and data admissible under Rule 702/Robinson | Shipman didn’t personally inspect, take photos, or prepare the report; testimony was unreliable and prejudicial | Court: Expert testimony admissible—opinions based on inspector’s work and suitable methodology; admission not reversible error |
| 4. Spoliation instruction / demolition of the house | Lampson did not intentionally destroy evidence; demolition occurred under SETRPC after claim and suit; insurer inspected earlier | National argued demolition and loss of pre/post photos constituted spoliation warranting jury instruction | Court: Under Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, must show intentional (bad-faith) spoliation or prejudice that irreparably impairs presentation; record lacked such proof; refusal to submit instruction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (procedural posture and interlocutory appeal principles)
- Speer v. Stover, 685 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. 1985) (standing/appeal procedural reference)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract construction and ambiguity rules)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)
- Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (spoliation instruction requires intentional destruction or demonstrable prejudice)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) (expert testimony must rely on sufficient data and methodology)
- TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (Rule 702 and expert qualification principles)
- Waite Hill Servs. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. 1998) (one satisfaction rule / avoiding double recovery)