Richard Seim and Linda Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds and Lisa Scott
551 S.W.3d 161
Tex.2018Background
- Richard and Linda Seim bought homeowners insurance from Allstate Texas Lloyds and later filed a storm-damage claim that Allstate denied as not caused by wind or hail (policy covered only wind/hail).
- The Seims sued Allstate and adjuster Lisa Scott; Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence of a covered loss and that limitations barred the claim.
- The Seims served a summary-judgment response timely but failed to attach evidence; they filed an amended response and evidentiary attachments (two expert reports and an affidavit by engineer Neil Hall) on the day of the hearing without leave.
- Hall’s first report suggested some damage predated Aug. 13, 2013; his later report concluded the Aug. 13, 2013 windstorm caused the damage. Neither report was verified.
- Hall’s affidavit referenced the reports, contained a jurat but was unsigned by the notary, and did not restate the causal opinions; Allstate objected to the evidence for multiple formal defects but the trial court granted summary judgment without a separate written ruling on those objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seim) | Defendant's Argument (Allstate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of late-filed expert reports/affidavit as summary-judgment evidence | Hall’s reports and affidavit create a fact issue that storm caused covered damage | Reports unverified, unauthenticated; affidavit defective (no notary signature, does not swear to reports) | Court holds trial court erred to disregard evidence on appeal for formal defects absent trial-court ruling; remands to court of appeals to assess other grounds |
| Whether objections to evidentiary form must be expressly ruled on to preserve error | Objections to form should not defeat admissibility on appeal when substance is clear | Formal objections were timely; trial court’s summary-judgment order implicitly resolved objections | Court: implicit ruling not shown here; formal defects are subject to preservation—Allstate failed to obtain ruling so court of appeals erred to exclude evidence on that basis |
| Distinction between substantive vs. formal defects in affidavits | Hall’s affidavit and reports substantively show causation | Defects are formal (verification, jurat, notarization) and required trial ruling to preserve | Court reiterates formal defects must be ruled on at trial to preserve; Mansions controls—formal defects waived if no trial-court ruling |
| Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on other grounds without resolving evidentiary preservation | Seims argue court of appeals relied on waived defects | Allstate contends summary judgment could be affirmed on alternative substantive grounds | Court declines to reach alternative grounds and remands to court of appeals for further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United Blood Servs. v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1997) (trial evidentiary standards apply to summary-judgment proceedings)
- Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery Cty., 365 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2012) (distinguishing formal versus substantive affidavit defects; formal defects require preservation)
- Blum v. Julian, 977 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (recognizes possible implicit rulings on evidentiary objections in summary-judgment context)
- Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (similar to Blum on implicit rulings)
- In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (implicit ruling may preserve issue when implication is clear)
- Mitchell v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 109 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (evidence remains part of summary-judgment record absent written order sustaining objections)
- Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (practice guidance that parties should obtain written rulings to avoid waiver)
- Well Sols., Inc. v. Stafford, 32 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (trial court’s ruling on motion for summary judgment does not implicitly rule on objections to evidence)