OPINION
Sonia Caballero de Rangel and Eliazar Rangel appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
On October 20, 2001, the Rangels purchased a 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe. That same day, they obtained auto insurance coverage from Progressive for the vehicle and they renewed the policy each year through 2006. The Rangels drove the vehicle to Juarez, Mexico on June 3, 2006 and it was stolen. Ms. Rangel told a claims adjuster that she drove the vehicle to Juarez on a daily basis because her mother cared for her children. When the adjuster asked if she had driven it thirty times to Juarez in the month, Ms. Rangel stated, “No, approximately 20 times per month ... I would estimate.” Progressive denied the Rangels’ theft claim based on a provision in the policy excluding coverage if the vehicle was driven into Mexico more than ten times in the thirty day period leading up to the actual date of loss.
The 2001 policy included the following language related to the Mexico coverage:
The coverages for your covered auto provided by this policy are extended to accidents occurring in Mexico within 25 miles of the United States border. This extension only applies for infrequent trips into Mexico that do not exceed ten days at any one time. [Emphasis in original].
The 2006 policy in effect at the time of the vehicle’s theft included additional language defining the term “infrequent:”
Coverage for your covered vehicle under this policy is extended to accidentsoccurring in Mexico, but only if within 25 miles of the United States border. This limited extension of coverage only applies to infrequent trips into Mexico that do not exceed ten (10) days at any one time. ‘Infrequent trips’ means less than 10 trips into Mexico during the thirty (30) day period leading up to and including the actual date of loss.... [Emphasis in original].
The Rangels filed suit alleging causes of action for breach of the insurance contract, common law insurance bad faith, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent claims handling, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code. The claims are based on two distinct allegations. First, the Rangels assert that Progressive misrepresented the terms of the policy’s Mexico coverage by representing when it sold the policy to them on October 20, 2001, that the Mexico coverage had no limit on the frequency of trips into Mexico. The negligent misrepresentation cause of action, and a portion of the DTPA and Insurance Code causes of action, are based on this allegation. We will refer to these as the misrepresentation causes of action. Second, the Rangels allege that Progressive wrongfully denied their theft claim in 2006. This allegation is the foundation of the Rangels’ breach of contract, common law insurance bad faith, negligence, negligent claims handling, and the remainder of their DTPA and Insurance Code causes of action. We will refer to these as the denial of coverage claims.
Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment based on six grounds: (1) the summary judgment evidence conclusively established that there has been no breach of the Rangels’ Texas Personal Auto Policy Insurance Policy; (2) the Rangels cannot establish the existence of an element essential to their “bad faith” claim on which they bear the burden of proof at trial— that Progressive breached the Texas Personal Auto Policy insurance contract; (3) the summary judgment evidence conclusively established that there has been no actionable misrepresentation of the Ran-gels’ Progressive Personal Auto Insurance Policy under Texas law; (4) the Rangels’ statutory “bad faith” claim for unfair settlement practices under the Insurance Code and the DTPA fails for the same reason their common law “bad faith” cause of action fails; (5) Texas law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent claims handling; and (6) the Rangels’ negligence and negligent misrepresentation causes of action, as well as the claims based on the Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the basis for its ruling.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a summary judgment case, the issue on appeal is whether the movant met the summary judgment burden by establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). We review all summary judgments
de novo. Valence Operating Company v. Dorsett,
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
In Issue Five, the Rangels challenge the granting of summary judgment on the statute of limitations affirmative defense. A defendant moving for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of limitations has the burden to conclusively establish that defense.
University of Houston v. Clark,
By its summary judgment motion, Progressive asserted that the causes of action based on Progressive’s alleged misrepresentation regarding the policy’s Mexico coverage are barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
1
Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run when a particular cause of action accrues. <S. V
¶, R.V.,
The Rangels assert that on October 20, 2001, a Progressive agent informed them
THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE CLAIMS
In Issue Three, the Rangels argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there existed genuine issues of material fact concerning the formation of the contract for insurance and its breach. They seek to avoid application of the Mexico coverage limitation provision for two reasons. First, they contend that the contract is ambiguous. Second, they allege that Progressive fraudulently induced them to enter into the contract. As noted by Progressive in its brief, the Ran-gels did not plead ambiguity or fraudulent inducement in their petition and they did not include either issue in their summary judgment response. Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). Thus, the Rangels are not permitted to raise these arguments for the first time on appeal as a reason to reverse the summary judgment.
See
Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(e);
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority,
Progressive sought summary judgment on the breach of contract, common law bad faith, and the remainder of the DTPA and Insurance Code claims on four grounds. The Rangels’s brief includes an issue generally challenging the granting of summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, but the brief does not address the ground actually raised by Progressive’s motion for summary judgment on that claim. Further, the Rangels have not addressed any of those grounds aimed at the other denial of coverage causes of action. An appellant must attack every ground upon which summary judgment could have been granted to obtain a reversal.
Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier,
Because the Rangels have failed to challenge the grounds on which summary judgment could have been granted on their breach of contract, bad faith, and the remaining DTPA and Insurance Code claims, we are required to affirm the granting of summary judgment on those claims.
See Juarez v. Longoria,
NEGLIGENT CLAIMS HANDLING
The Rangels do not present any issue on appeal with respect to the granting of summary judgment on their negligent claims handling cause of action. Progressive argued in their summary judgment motion that Texas does not recognize a cause of action for negligent claims handling. Based on the authority cited in the discussion of Issue Three, we find that the Rangels have waived any error as to the granting of summary judgment on that ground.
See Juarez v. Longoria,
RIVERA, J., not participating.
Notes
. Progressive specifically sought summary judgment on this ground with respect to the negligence, negligent representation, DTPA and Insurance Code claims. According to paragraphs 24 and 25 of the original petition, however, the negligence claim is not based on the 2001 misrepresentation but is based on Progressive’s refusal to pay the theft claim. Progressive made clear in its summary judgment motion that the statutes of limitations ground was directed at the claims based on the alleged 2001 misrepresentation. Therefore, we have construed this ground of the summary judgment motion as being directed only at the negligent misrepresentation, DTPA and Insurance Code claims. We will address the negligence claim in the context of the issues pertaining to the denial of coverage claims.