T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor
03-13-00790-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 8, 2015Background
- The Archers sued the Andersons alleging tortious interference that caused attorneys’ fees and other damages; the jury returned a damage award lower than the Archers sought.
- Archers sought a judgment NOV / additur to add $588,054 (an alleged settlement-related attorneys’ fee amount) to the jury verdict.
- Trial court denied the Archers’ motion for judgment NOV / additur.
- Andersons (cross‑appellees) argued the jury’s single, broad damage question was supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the court may not increase a jury verdict by additur.
- Andersons emphasized that the Archers’ fee evidence was contested: some fee charges and suits were not proximately caused by the alleged interference and the jury could reasonably exclude them.
- The appeal focuses on whether the verdict must be increased as a matter of law (additur/JNOV) and whether the evidence legally supports the jury’s damage finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Archers) | Defendant's Argument (Andersons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should add $588,054 to the jury verdict (additur/JNOV) | Archers: Jury omitted that settlement-related fee amount; court should add it to correct the verdict | Andersons: Rules of civil procedure do not permit court to perform additur; court may not substitute its judgment for jury | Court: Denied additur/JNOV; cannot increase verdict by additur; must respect jury discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attorneys’ fees as damages | Archers: Submitted fee records and testimony establishing fees and settlement-related charges | Andersons: Fee evidence was disputed; records and witness testimony left proximate causation unresolved; jury could reasonably exclude some fees | Court: Evidence supports a range of damages; jury’s award is within that range and legally sufficient |
| Proximate cause of claimed fees (were fees caused by alleged interference?) | Archers: Fees incurred were proximately caused by Anderson’s interference | Andersons: Many suits/fees were unrelated or not reasonably foreseeable consequences | Court: Jury could reasonably find some fees not proximately caused; proximate‑cause dispute precluded judgment as a matter of law |
| Proper form and effect of broad/general damage submission | Archers: Requested specific damage breakdown; contend jury omitted specific element | Andersons: Broad submission was proper; absent specific jury findings, court cannot speculate about inclusion/exclusion of particular amounts | Court: Broad damage question permitted; court will not speculate about jury reasoning; verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal‑sufficiency review of jury findings)
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Deen, 312 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. 1958) (limits on trial court altering jury awards)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (standards for new trial when verdict is manifestly too small or large)
- Larson v. Cactus Utility Co., 730 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1987) (jury discretion in awarding damages within evidence range)
- National Plan Administrators v. National Health Ins. Co., 150 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2004) (review of damage submissions and sufficiency principles)