Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Joseph Wilde
385 S.W.3d 733
Tex. App.2012Background
- Wilde insured by Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company for a 1999 John Deere cotton stripper valued at up to $90,000.
- The cotton stripper burned December 16, 2005; Wilde’s claim was denied, leading to suit for breach of contract, bad-faith duties, and unfair settlement practices under Texas Insurance Code § 541.060.
- Trial proceeded in 2010; mistrial granted; retried in 2011 with the court denying some post-trial motions and overruling objections to jury submissions on damages.
- Jury awarded Wilde market-value damages ($75,000), lost profits ($60,000), and attorney’s fees ($30,000) after finding Texas Farm knowingly engaged in unfair practices.
- Judgment was entered in Wilde’s favor on the jury verdict, but on appeal Texas Farm challenged all three damage awards as legally or factually insufficient.
- Court reverses and renders take-nothing judgment, concluding damages awarded were improper and Wilde is not a prevailing party eligible for attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market-value damages proper? | Wilde supported market value as the post-loss diminution in value. | There was no post-fire market-value evidence; damages not supportable. | Market-value damages improper; lack of post-fire market value evidence. |
| Lost profits permitted when property totally destroyed? | Lost profits measured ongoing earnings from use of damaged property. | Totally destroyed property limits to market-value damages only. | Double recovery barred; lost profits not recoverable when only market-value damages available. |
| Attorney’s fees recoverable for prevailing plaintiff? | Prevailing plaintiff entitled to fees under statutes when damages are awarded. | Wilde did not prevail on request for damages or obtain relief; fee entitlement absent. | Wilde not a prevailing party; attorney’s fees reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and standards for appellate review)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (double-recovery prohibition for lost-value vs. cost-of-repair)
- Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1995) (market value as diminution in value before and after injury)
- Pasadena State Bank v. Isaac, 228 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. 1950) (valuation of damaged property and admissibility of testimony )
- Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Naztec, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no writ) (valuation theories for damaged property; salvage/value considerations)
- Contreras v. Bennett, 361 S.W.3d 174 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2011) (double-recovery and remedies in property damage cases)
- City of Houston v. Church, 554 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1977) (election of remedies in property damage cases)