United Services Automobile Association v. Joseph Hayes, Jr and Joanne Hayes
01-14-00133-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 5, 2015Background
- Appellees Joseph and Joanne Hayes oppose USAA’s June 1, 2015 motions for leave to file a supplemental brief and to exceed word limits, filed months after briefing closed and the case was submitted.
- USAA filed its opening brief Sept. 26, 2014 and reply brief Jan. 29, 2015; the Hayeses filed their appellees’ brief Dec. 19, 2014 and raised that USAA failed to challenge jury findings that it violated the Texas Insurance Code and that $20,000 fairly compensated damages from that violation.
- USAA mentioned the Hayeses’ point in a reply brief footnote but did not add substantive briefing or seek leave earlier to supplement its opening brief.
- The Hayeses argue USAA’s new issues are waived because they were not presented in USAA’s opening brief and no reason was given for the late supplementation; they invoke Texas appellate briefing and error-preservation rules.
- The Hayeses further argue the Court can affirm based on the jury’s breach-of-contract findings, avoiding the need to consider any late Insurance Code challenge by USAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayes) | Defendant's Argument (USAA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to supplement appellant’s brief | Deny: USAA’s supplemental brief raises new issues long after briefing/submission; no justification for delay | Seeks leave to raise additional arguments and authorities after submission | Appellees request denial; filing asks court to refuse late supplementation; no court ruling in this filing |
| Compliance with appellate briefing rules / waiver | USAA waived new issues by failing to state them in opening brief; appellees cite Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f) and precedent | Argues issues are appropriate to raise late (characterizes them as "basic") | Appellees contend waiver; request denial of USAA’s motion to avoid ignoring preservation rules |
| Timeliness / prejudice from delay | Motion filed months after briefs and after oral argument; prejudice and procedural unfairness warrant denial | Suggests supplementation is necessary despite delay | Appellees argue delay unexplained and unjustified; ask court not to reopen briefing |
| Effect of breach-of-contract findings on Insurance Code challenge | If court affirms on breach-of-contract, there is no need to consider USAA’s late Insurance Code challenge; appellees urge affirmation on contract grounds | Seeks to challenge recovery under Insurance Code (new arguments) | Appellees urge affirmance on contract breach to obviate Insurance Code issues; request court rely on contract findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Miner Dederick Const., L.L.P. v. Gulf Chem. & Metallurgical Corp., 403 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (appellant must present all issues in opening brief; cannot raise new issues in reply brief)
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. AMJ Investments, LLC, 447 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (insured may recover under breach-of-contract or statutory-violation theory when insurer fails to pay full claim)