Wyly v. Integrity Insurance Solutions
502 S.W.3d 901
Tex. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Wyly purchased an aircraft shipped from Tennessee to Texas and sought insurance to cover transit loss “from A to Z” (loading through unloading).
- Wyly obtained the policy through agent Garner Geisler (Integrity) and broker Heather Camp; Essex issued the policy.
- After delivery, the plane was damaged by tie straps; Essex denied coverage, citing an express policy exclusion for improper packing/loading.
- Wyly sued Integrity (among others) for DTPA and Texas Insurance Code violations, negligent misrepresentation, and related claims; Wyly nonsuited several claims and defendants, leaving DTPA and Insurance Code claims against Integrity.
- The trial court granted Integrity summary judgment (no-evidence and traditional); the court of appeals reversed as to Integrity and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Integrity’s no-evidence motion complied with Rule 166a(i) | Wyly argued Integrity failed to specify elements with no evidence and reply raised new grounds | Integrity did not dispute at briefing stage | Court: No-evidence motion was deficient (did not specify elements); reply improperly raised new grounds — trial court could not grant under no-evidence standard; issues sustained |
| Whether agent’s oral assurances about “A to Z” coverage constituted an actionable misrepresentation under the DTPA and Insurance Code | Wyly: Geisler affirmatively represented full transit coverage and Wyly relied on those statements | Integrity: General assurances or statements of adequacy are not actionable; absent affirmative misrepresentation Wyly’s mistaken belief isn’t actionable | Court: Genuine fact issue existed whether Geisler made an affirmative misrepresentation about coverage; summary judgment improper on that basis |
| Whether Wyly’s failure to read the policy bars his DTPA/Insurance Code claims (the “deemed to know” / failure-to-read defense) | Wyly: Failure to read does not defeat claims based on an affirmative misrepresentation by agent | Integrity: An insured is charged with knowledge of policy terms; failure to read negates misrepresentation claim as a matter of law | Court: Failure-to-read (deemed-to-know) is not a defense to claims based on an affirmative misrepresentation; summary judgment improper on that basis |
| Whether common-law defenses may bar statutory DTPA/Insurance Code claims | Wyly: Baldwin and its progeny limit common-law defenses against DTPA claims | Integrity: Many cases apply deemed-to-know to statutory claims | Court: Common-law defenses cannot defeat a statutory claim premised on an affirmative misrepresentation; distinguished cases where no affirmative misrepresentation existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidentiary and inference rules on review)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (affirmance if any preserved theory supports summary judgment)
- Brown & Brown of Tex., Inc. v. Omni Metals, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (agent misrepresentation can create fact issue re: coverage; additional insured duties)
- Garrison Contractors, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996), aff'd, 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishing failures-to-disclose obtainable policy terms from affirmative misrepresentations)