Ramirez v. GEICO
548 S.W.3d 761
Tex. App.2018Background
- Ramirez held an auto insurance policy with Geico and was rear-ended on Oct. 3, 2012; he sought medical (chiropractic) treatment and notified Geico immediately.
- Geico acknowledged the claim in October 2012 and requested an application and attending physician’s report; it also advised Ramirez of repair-choice rights.
- Ramirez alleges Geico paid some bills in Dec. 2012 but then delayed paying remaining chiropractic bills until Aug–Sept. 2013, causing him to stop treatment and suffer ongoing back pain and mental anguish.
- Ramirez sued pro se (Sept. 3, 2014) asserting DTPA and Texas Insurance Code violations (listing multiple misrepresentation and unfair-settlement-practice theories).
- Geico filed a no-evidence summary-judgment motion after discovery time elapsed, challenging Ramirez to produce evidence supporting the statutory elements of his extracontractual claims; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- Ramirez also filed a defective affidavit of indigence on appeal; the trial court sustained Geico’s timely contest and Ramirez paid costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting Geico's no-evidence MSJ on DTPA claims | Ramirez argued Geico improperly relied on a "payment in full" defense and the court misconstrued his extracontractual claims; he asserted delays and a payment‑delay "scheme" caused damages | Geico argued Ramirez had no evidence of any false/misleading acts or specific misrepresentations and thus could not meet DTPA elements | Court: Affirmed. Geico properly moved on lack of evidence of actionable misrepresentations or intentional delay; Ramirez produced only conclusory affidavit and no factual proof of misrepresentations or when bills were presented for payment |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting MSJ on Texas Insurance Code claims | Ramirez contended Geico violated multiple Insurance Code provisions (misrepresentations, unfair settlement practices, failure to timely affirm/deny, inadequate investigation/explanation) | Geico argued Ramirez offered no evidentiary support for any allegation (no proof bills were submitted, no denial, no unreasonable investigation, no specific misrepresentations) | Court: Affirmed. Ramirez failed to present more than a scintilla of evidence on any challenged Code elements (timing, communications, investigation, or misstatements) |
| Whether Geico could use payment as basis for no‑evidence MSJ without pleading it as an affirmative defense | Ramirez argued "payment in full" is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and cannot underpin a no‑evidence motion | Geico clarified it did not rely on payment as an affirmative defense in its no‑evidence motion but used payment to show the suit was extracontractual and challenged Ramirez to produce evidence of statutory violations | Court: Held Geico did not rely on an unpleaded affirmative defense; its no‑evidence motion was properly targeted at Ramirez’s burden to produce evidence of his statutory claims |
| Whether the trial court erred in sustaining Geico's contest to Ramirez's affidavit of indigence | Ramirez argued Geico's contest was untimely (misreading the rule) and he was denied adequate notice and an opportunity to amend | Geico argued it timely filed its contest under the then-applicable 10-day rule and the affidavit failed to satisfy Rule 20.1(b) requirements | Court: Affirmed. Geico's contest was timely; Ramirez's affidavit was defective and he neither sought leave to amend nor objected, so the challenge was properly sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (no‑evidence SJ requires specific statement of challenged elements)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no‑evidence motion must give fair notice and specify elements challenged)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment and directed verdict equivalence)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (burden shifts to nonmovant to produce evidence raising genuine issue)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (conclusory affidavits and statements of subjective belief are not competent summary-judgment evidence)
- Wyly v. Integrity Ins. Sols., 502 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (misrepresentation by insurer requires identification of specific, actionable statement)