392 S.W.3d 340
Tex. App.2013Background
- Terex Utilities, Inc. rented to Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. a custom 2007 Terex Commander hydraulic rotating digger derrick truck; the truck was destroyed in a September 8, 2009 rollover.
- The rental contract required Republic to pay the full-replacement value for loss or damage and to maintain insurance with coverage for repair or replacement at full-replacement cost.
- Republic paid $100,075.13 and Terex sued for breach of contract and negligence seeking damages of $38,198.37 plus interest, fees, and costs.
- Terex and Republic cross-moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied Terex’s traditional motion and granted Republic’s traditional motion, dismissing Terex’s claims with prejudice.
- Terex appeals, contending the contract requires full replacement value of the destroyed 2007 truck, and that there are no genuine fact issues; Republic argues replacement value is the value of the 2007 truck or its market value, and that Terex cannot recover under contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'full-replacement value' under contract | Terex: replacement value means current cost of a new truck with equal effectiveness | Republic: replacement value should reflect the 2007 truck (or its market value) not a new 2009 model | Genuine fact issues exist on valuation and meaning; not entitled to summary judgment on this point |
| Whether Republic breached by paying $100,075.13 and denying full replacement | Terex: contract requires full replacement; partial payment breaches | Republic: paid value before loss; no obligation to replace with a 2009 truck; no breach | Issue of breach and damages unresolved due to valuation disputes; trial court erred in granting Republic summary judgment |
| Whether further remand is needed to resolve valuation and contract interpretation | Terex:idk | Republic:idk | Remand required to resolve remaining questions on valuation and contract interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 324 S.W.3d 660 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2010) (standard for breach-of-contract elements; care in burden of proof)
- Shaw Tank Cleaning Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co., 442 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Civ. App. – Amarillo 1969) (replacement cost may consider depreciation and obsolescence when no market value)
- Fielding v. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc., 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (summary-judgment standard; review of evidence)
- Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (summary judgment standards; burden on movant)
- Frost Nat. Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (summary judgment—conclusive negation of an essential element)