Case Information
*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 4:09:19 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-14-00133-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 4:09:19 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
No. 01-14-00133-CV ___________________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS ___________________________________________________________ UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.
JOSEPH HAYES, JR. AND JOANNE HAYES, Appellees/Cross-Appellants ___________________________________________________________ On Appeal from Cause No. 2009-63319 In the 165th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas ___________________________________________________________ APPELLANT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS APPELLANT’S BRIEF ___________________________________________________________ Levon G. Hovnatanian State Bar No. 10059825 hovnatanian@mdjwlaw.com Christopher W. Martin State Bar No. 13057620 martin@mdjwlaw.com Kevin G. Cain
State Bar No. 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com M ARTIN , D ISIERE , J EFFERSON & W ISDOM , L.L.P.
808 Travis, 20 th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 632-1700 – Telephone (713) 222-0101 – Facsimile *2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ii
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 1
I. USAA CHALLENGES THE JURY’S FINDING IN RESPONSE TO
QUESTION 1A, IN REGARD TO NOT ONLY THE ROOF, BUT ALSO THE GARAGE DOOR AND “OTHER EXTERIOR DAMAGE.” .................................................................................................... 1 II. THE JURY’S ANSWERS TO QUESTION 4 CANNOT SUPPORT
AN AWARD OF DAMAGES. ...................................................................... 1 III. THE HAYES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD
PREDICATED ON THE JURY’S FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5. ................................................................................................ 2 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................... 2
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................ 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 4
i *3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Cases
Ashford Partners, Ltd. v. ECO Res., Inc. ,
401 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. 2012) .................................................................................. 1
Grafa v. Morgan ,
696 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1985, writ dism’d) .................................. 2
Hanson v. Republic Ins. Co. ,
5 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) ................. 1, 2
Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd ,
177 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2005) ................................................................................ 2
Smithdale Court, Inc. v. Kelly ,
1993 WL 282922 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ)..................... 2
ii
I. USAA CHALLENGES THE JURY’S FINDING IN QUESTION 1A
REGARDING THE GARAGE DOOR AND “OTHER EXTERIOR DAMAGE.”
There is no evidence that USAA failed to compensate the Hayes for their garage door and other exterior damage. Berke testified that USAA’s payments
included the cost to replace the garage door and to repair the gas light. RR 5:146-
51, 153. Wilsford testified that a soffit on the Hayes’ house had been repaired but
that another one on their house had not. RR 6:140-41. However, testimony that
something had not been repaired is not evidence that USAA did not pay the Hayes
so the repair could be made.
Because there is no evidence of a breach of contract regarding the roof, and there was no evidence that USAA failed to compensate the Hayes for their garage
door and other exterior damage, the Hayes were not entitled to an award for breach
of contract or attorney’s fees based on breach of contract. See Ashford Partners,
Ltd. v. ECO Res., Inc. , 401 S.W.3d 35, 40-41 (Tex. 2012).
II. THE JURY’S ANSWERS TO QUESTION 4 CANNOT SUPPORT A
DAMAGES AWARD.
Question 4 inquired about unfair or deceptive acts or practices. CR 503. A claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices is an extra-contractual claim. Hanson
v. Republic Ins. Co. , 5 S.W.3d 324, 327 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet.
denied). Because USAA did not breach the policy ( see RR 5:146-51, 153; RR
6:140-41), extra-contractual damages and attorney’s fees based on extra-
contractual damages are not recoverable. See Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Boyd , 177 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. 2005).
III. THE HAYES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD PREDICATED
ON THE JURY’S FINDINGS IN QUESTION 5.
Regarding the $20,000 award in Question 5 for exterior damage (CR 504), the answer to Question 1B—that USAA did not fail to comply with the policy
regarding interior damage (CR 500)—cannot support the award. See Smithdale
Court, Inc. v. Kelly , 1993 WL 282922, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1993, no writ). The jury’s answer to Question 1A (that USAA failed to comply
with the policy regarding exterior damage) (CR 500) also cannot support it,
because, as shown above, there is no evidence that USAA breached the contract
regarding exterior damage. See RR 5:146-51, 153; RR 6:140-41. Without liability
for breach of contract, there can be no breach of contract damages. See Grafa v.
Morgan , 696 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1985, writ dism’d).
The jury’s answers to Question 4 cannot support the $20,000 award.
Question 4 inquired about unfair or deceptive acts or practices (CR 503), and a
claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices is an extra-contractual claim.
Hanson , 5 S.W.3d at 327. Because USAA did not breach the policy ( see RR
5:146-51, 153; RR 6:140-41), extra-contractual damages and attorney’s fees based
on extra-contractual damages are not recoverable. See Boyd , 177 S.W.3d at 922.
USAA respectfully requests the relief requested in its appellant’s brief. *6 Respectfully submitted, M ARTIN , D ISIERE , J EFFERSON & W ISDOM , L.L.P. By: /s/ Kevin G. Cain Levon G. Hovnatanian State Bar No. 10059825 hovnatanian@mdjwlaw.com Christopher W. Martin State Bar No. 13057620 martin@mdjwlaw.com Kevin G. Cain State Bar No. 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 808 Travis, 20 th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 632-1700 – Telephone (713) 222-0101 – Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This is to certify that this computer-generated APPELLANT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS
APPELLANT’S BRIEF contains 494 words.
/s/ Kevin G. Cain Kevin G. Cain Dated: June 1, 2015 *7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above APPELLANT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS
APPELLANT’S BRIEF has been served on the following individuals on this, the
1st day of June, 2015, via electronic filing, with a courtesy copy sent via e-mail to
Jennifer Bruch Hogan:
Jennifer Bruch Hogan
jhogan@hoganfirm.com
Richard P. Hogan, Jr.
rhogan@hoganfirm.com
HOGAN & HOGAN
909 Fannin, Suite 2700
Houston, Texas 77010
René M. Sigman
rmsigman@mostynlaw.com
THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM
3810 W. Alabama Street
Houston, Texas 77027
Randal Cashiola
rcashiola@cashiolabeanlaw.com
CASHIOLA & BEAN
2090 Broadway Street, Suite A
Beaumont, Texas 77701
/s/ Kevin G. Cain Kevin G. Cain