Sidney and Shatika Davis v. Homeowners of America Insurance Company, 700 S.W.3d 837

Sidney and Shatika Davis sued Homeowners of America Insurance Co. (HOAIC) over partial denial of homeowners‑insurance claims, asserting breach of contract, breach of good faith, Texas Insurance Code and DTPA violations, fraud, and conspiracy.
HOAIC answered with a general denial (no limitations defense pleaded) and moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a, arguing all claims were time‑barred; it attached various documents (policy, correspondence, estimates) to its motion.
The trial court granted HOAIC’s 91a motion dismissing all claims and later denied the Davises’ motion for new trial.
On appeal, the court reviewed the 91a ruling de novo and reiterated that Rule 91a limits the court to the plaintiff’s pleading and any Rule 59 pleading exhibits—the court may not consider evidentiary materials attached to the movant’s motion.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: (1) HOAIC failed to show the claims had no basis in fact; and (2) the pleadings did not affirmatively show the claims were time‑barred so dismissal under Rule 91a on limitations was improper. The court declined to address the new‑trial issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was dismissal under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a proper?	Davis: Petition gives fair notice; claims not foreclosed on face of pleading.	HOAIC: Claims are barred by limitations shown by documents attached to motion.	Reversed — 91a dismissal improper; court may not rely on movant’s evidentiary attachments and pleadings do not show a clear legal bar.
Do the claims lack any basis in fact?	Davis: Allegations are plausible and believable.	HOAIC: Asserted lack of factual basis but did not specify reasons in its motion.	Reversed — HOAIC failed to meet Rule 91a.2 requirement to state specific reasons; facts pleaded are not unbelievable.
May a defendant obtain 91a dismissal by asserting an unpleaded limitations defense supported by documents attached to its motion?	Davis: Limitations not pleaded or shown on face of petition; movant cannot inject evidence into 91a analysis.	HOAIC: Limitations defense established by attached correspondence and documents.	Reversed — court may not consider movant’s extraneous evidence; limitations not established from the pleading alone; summary judgment (Rule 166a) is proper vehicle.
Was denial of new trial erroneous?	Davis: Trial court erred in denying new trial after improper dismissal.	HOAIC: (defended dismissal)	Not addressed by appellate court.

San Jacinto River Auth. v. Medina, 627 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2021) (de novo review and limits on Rule 91a analysis)
City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (de novo standard for Rule 91a rulings)
Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2020) (Rule 59 exhibits narrow; defendant pleadings considered only to determine if affirmative defense is properly before court)
In re Shire PLC, 633 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021) (plaintiff’s recovery must be foreclosed as a matter of law to merit Rule 91a dismissal)
AC Interests, L.P. v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 543 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. 2018) (Rule 91a improper when resolution requires matters not evident from the pleadings)
Reaves v. City of Corpus Christi, 518 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017) (plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to supply legal basis but not plead itself out of court)