349 S.W.3d 748
Tex. App.2011Background
- VMI leased an airport hangar in 1997 and was required to obtain $1,000,000 general-liability coverage naming the landlord as additional insured.
- In 2001 Interfert sold the hangar to the Woodrow V. Lesikar Family Trust, which assigned the lease to WHA.
- VMI allegedly breached the lease and WHA obtained possession; a fire damaged the hangar in October 2002.
- WHA later alleged Millennium failed to procure the required coverage; WHA asserted damages arising from Millennium's negligence.
- Millennium moved for summary judgment arguing no duty and limitations; trial court granted on grounds including limitations; WHA later sought summary judgment on sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Millennium owe a duty to WHA in procuring insurance? | WHA asserts Millennium had a duty to obtain the lease-required coverage. | Millennium argues there is no privity or duty to WHA as a non-client third party. | Millennium did not owe a duty to WHA. |
| Is WHA's claim barred by limitations and/or other grounds for summary judgment? | WHA contends there are genuine issues of material fact; limitations do not bar the claim. | Millennium contends no duty and other grounds support summary judgment. | Summary judgment affirmed on the duty ground; holds no duty existed. |
| Was Millennium entitled to an evidentiary hearing on sanctions? | Millennium sought an evidentiary hearing on sanctions. | WHA did not object to non-evidentiary consideration; error waived. | Waived; no reversible error; sanctions issue overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- May v. United Servs. Ass'n of Am., 844 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. 1992) (broker duties to place insurance and inform if unable)
- Sonic Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Croix, 278 S.W.3d 377 (Tex.App.-Hou. [14th Dist.] 2008) (broker duties to client; no extra-contractual extension in some cases)
- Hartman v. Urban, 946 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997) (duty analysis with privity considerations)
- Ervin v. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp CPAs, L.L.P., 234 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2007) (privity and implied-contract concepts in professional-negligence claims)
- Peavy v. Tex. Home Mgt., Inc., 89 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2002) (considerations for imposing duty; actor’s burden)
- Kirwan v. City of Waco, 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009) (foreseeability and duty analysis framework)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (two-prong foreseeability test for duty)
- Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1991) (foreseeability of harm in duty analysis)
- May v. United Servs. Ass'n of Am. (duplicate), 844 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. 1992) (as above)
- Moore v. Whitney-Vaky Ins. Agency, 966 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) (broker duties generally not to extend protections absent client relationship)