Robert J. Johnson v. Oscar O. Tena and Michael Garcia
11-14-00296-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- On July 12, 2011, Robert J. Johnson was rear-ended in Midland, Texas by a pickup owned by Oscar Tena; Michael Garcia was driving. Johnson first sued Tena within two years, but sued Garcia five months after the two-year limitations period expired.
- Immediately after the crash parties exchanged information at the scene; Johnson later communicated with Loya Insurance (insurer for Oscar Tena), which paid property-damage and made modest bodily-injury offers.
- Johnson retained counsel within three months; counsel made Stowers demands in October 2011 and June 2012. Loya increased offers and repeatedly requested medical records over an 11-month span; Johnson’s counsel did not respond to repeated requests.
- Garcia moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations; he argued Johnson’s suit against him was time-barred. Johnson invoked equitable estoppel to toll limitations, arguing Loya Insurance misrepresented or concealed the driver’s identity and induced delay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Garcia. The court of appeals affirmed, holding Johnson failed to raise a fact issue that Loya owed him a duty as a third-party claimant necessary to support equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel tolled limitations for suit against Garcia | Johnson: Loya’s conduct/misrepresentations concealed driver identity and induced delay, satisfying estoppel elements | Garcia: Statute of limitations expired; no duty owed by insurer to third-party that would permit estoppel | Court: No — Johnson failed to raise fact issue that insurer owed him a duty; estoppel fails |
| Whether insurer’s silence or requests for information can create a special-duty basis for estoppel | Johnson: Requests and communications prevented him from knowing/filing; reliance was reasonable | Garcia/Loya: Insurer represents insured’s interests and need not assume extra-contractual duties to third parties | Court: No special relationship shown; insurer’s conduct did not impose duty to toll limitations |
| When cause of action accrued for negligence claim | Johnson: (argued delay was justified by insurer conduct) | Garcia: Cause accrued at collision date, starting two-year clock | Court: Accrual at July 12, 2011; limitations expired July 12, 2013 |
| Burden on summary judgment regarding affirmative defense | Johnson: Raised fact issues on estoppel elements | Garcia: Established affirmative defense; burden shifted to Johnson to produce evidence | Court: Garcia met burden; Johnson did not produce evidence on threshold duty element, so summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Transport Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1995) (insurers owe no extra‑contractual duties to third‑party claimants that would conflict with duties to insureds)
- Otis v. Scientific Atlanta, Inc., 612 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1981) (concealment of identity does not toll limitations)
- Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. 1998) (elements of equitable estoppel articulated)
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) (equitable estoppel elements cited)
- Vaughn v. Sturm‑Hughes, 937 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (insurer’s nondisclosure of driver identity did not support estoppel against limitations)