Rebeca D. Balderas-Ramirez v. Anthony CarlDP
537 S.W.3d 625
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- December 18, 2011 rear-end collision destroyed (totaled) appellant Balderas-Ramirez’s 1999 Toyota 4Runner; she sued appellee Felder for negligence and property damages after personal-injury claims were settled with USAA.
- Vehicle was bought three weeks before the crash from Zapata Auto Center (Laredo) under an installment contract; Zapata held a security interest and was owed about $4,997.75.
- USAA’s market-evaluation concluded pre-crash actual cash value was $5,750 and USAA offered $6,194.68 (value + taxes/fees); USAA later paid Zapata $4,997.75 to satisfy the loan and issued a $241.15 “loss of use” check to plaintiff, which she endorsed and deposited.
- The wreck remained with a tow/storage company, which later sold it as salvage for $1,700 (applied to towing/storage charges) after deeming it abandoned.
- Plaintiff sought $7,000 (or $7,500 by later affidavit) for vehicle market value, $1,700 towing/storage, and prolonged loss-of-use damages (rental-value theory at $80/day over years). After the Texas Supreme Court decided J&D Towing (allowing loss-of-use in total-destruction cases), Felder moved for summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in full; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market value of vehicle | Balderas-Ramirez: lay-owner opinion and recent purchase (or online listings) support $7,000–$7,500 value | Felder: USAA market report shows $5,750; no-evidence to support $7,500 opinion | Court: Plaintiff’s owner-opinion lacked factual basis (ads/offers not actual sales; Laredo purchase not tied to Travis County); no fact issue — $5,750 accepted |
| Credit for payment to secured creditor (Zapata) | Balderas-Ramirez: payment to Zapata was a "gift" not a settlement, so should not offset recovery | Felder: USAA paid off plaintiff’s debt to secured creditor, extinguishing creditor’s interest; payment reduces defendant’s liability | Court: Payment satisfied debt encumbering vehicle; defendant entitled to credit; disallows double recovery |
| Towing and storage charges ($1,700 claimed) | Balderas-Ramirez: Pronto’s records show towing/storage accrued | Felder: No evidence plaintiff actually paid those charges; Pronto recouped via salvage sale | Court: Plaintiff presented no evidence of actual loss; charges were satisfied by salvage proceeds; no fact issue for plaintiff |
| Loss-of-use damages (availability, retroactivity, and quantum) | Balderas-Ramirez: J&D Towing allows loss-of-use in total-destruction cases; she submitted $80/day rental estimate and asserted inability to buy replacement for years | Felder: J&D should be prospective only; even if retroactive, prior $241.15 loss-of-use payment and other credits bar recovery; plaintiff’s rental estimate and long delay are speculative and not directly tied to replacement period | Court: Applied J&D Towing retroactively but held plaintiff’s evidence insufficient: no proof of pecuniary loss, actual deprivation only began years later, failure to mitigate/reasonable-replacement-period bars multi-year award; prior payments ($241.15 + remaining credit) further defeat recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- J&D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 478 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2016) (Texas Supreme Court holds loss-of-use damages are recoverable for totally destroyed personal property but must be foreseeable, not speculative, and limited to a reasonable replacement period)
- Mondragon v. Austin, 954 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (upheld multi-year loss-of-use award where plaintiff proved continuous deprivation and financial inability to replace)
- Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2012) (clarifies that a property owner may testify as to value but must provide factual bases for opinion)
- Pasadena State Bank v. Isaac, 228 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. 1950) (market-value measure: difference in market value immediately before and after injury)