Case Information
*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/5/2015 3:11:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-14-00133-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/5/2015 3:11:05 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
No. 01-14-00133-CV In the
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v.
JOSEPH HAYES, JR. AND JOANNE HAYES, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. RESPONSE TO USAA’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AS APPELLANT AND TO EXCEED THE WORD LIMITS TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
USAA’s motions for leave to file a supplemental brief and to exceed the word limits should be denied. By way of its supplemental brief—filed months
after all the briefing has closed and more than 30 days after the cause has been
submitted—USAA seeks to raise several entirely new issues that could have been,
and should have been, raised in its opening brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1(f) (“The
[opening] brief must state concisely all issues or points presented for review.”).
USAA offers no explanation for its failure to have raised these issues in its opening
brief. Nor does USAA attempt to show why “justice requires” that it be allowed to
raise new issues at this late date. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.7 (providing that a brief
may be supplemented “whenever justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms
the court may prescribe”). Justice does not require the Court to abandon well-
established error-preservation and appellate-briefing requirements at this late stage
of the appellate process. In these circumstances, the Court should deny State
Farm’s request to supplement its briefing with new issues, new arguments, and
new authorities.
As USAA acknowledges, when Mr. and Mrs. Hayes filed their appellees’ brief, Mr. and Mrs. Hayes pointed out USAA’s failure to have challenged the
jury’s findings (1) that USAA violated the Texas Insurance Code, and (2) that
$20,000 would fairly and reasonably compensate Mr. and Mrs. Hayes for their
damages that were caused by USAA’s violations of the Insurance Code. See
Hayes Br. as Appellees at 14-15. The Hayeses’ brief was filed on December 19,
2014.
USAA was aware of the Hayeses’ argument and responded to it in a footnote in its reply brief filed on January 29, 2015. See USAA Reply Br. at 2 n.1. But
USAA did not brief the new issues, arguments, and authorities it now wants to
raise. Id . And USAA did not request leave to supplement or amend its appellant’s
brief to add these new issues, arguments or authorities. Id .
This Court has repeatedly held that “the rules of appellate procedure do not allow an appellant to include in a reply brief a new issue in response to some
matter pointed out in the appellee’s brief but not raised in the appellant’s opening
brief.” Miner Dederick Const., L.L.P v. Gulf Chem. & Metallurgical Corp. , 403
S.W.3d 451, 463 n.3 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), pet denied , 455
S.W.3d 164 (Tex. 2015). “An appellant is required to present all issues to be
considered on appeal in appellant’s brief.” Brockman v. Tyson , 01-03-01335-CV,
2005 WL 2850128, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 27, 2005, pet.
denied). Furthermore, “[a] failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or
cite appropriate authority waives the complaint.” Wise v. Conklin , No. 01-13-
00840-CV, 2015 WL 1778612, at *4 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] April 16,
2015, no pet.); accord Anderson v. Houston Community College Sys. , No. 01-14-
00062-CV, 2015 WL 174233, at *10 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13,
2015, no pet.) (same).
More than eight months have passed since USAA filed its opening brief as appellant, and more than four months have passed since USAA filed its reply brief.
The case was argued and submitted more than a month ago. Yet only on Monday,
June 1, 2015 did USAA contact counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Hayes regarding a
request to amend or supplement its appellant’s brief, and only on Monday, June 1,
2015 did USAA file a motion for leave to supplement its eight-month-old brief as
appellant.
USAA’s motion for leave does not explain why USAA did not include the new arguments and authorities in its opening brief; USAA’s motion does not
explain USAA’s delay in seeking to amend its brief; and USAA’s motion does not
explain why its new arguments and authorities must be addressed in the interest of
justice. It is not in the interest of justice for the Court to overlook well-and-long-
established error preservation rules and briefing requirements. See Wilson v. State ,
01-11-01125-CR, 2015 WL 1501812, at *9-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
March 31, 2015, pet. filed) (concluding that justice did not require the Court to
overlook briefing requirements to address constitutional arguments that were not
included in the appellant’s initial brief); Green v. State , 01-00-00188-CV, 2002
WL 24363, at *3 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 10, 2002, pet ref’d)
(declining to address argument included in amended brief filed three months after
the deadline for original brief had expired “because appellant has not explained
why it was not included in the original brief or why it must be addressed in the
interest of justice”).
Furthermore, USAA’s assertion that its new arguments are “extremely basic” is disingenuous and inaccurate. See USAA Motion for Leave at 2-3 and
compare USAA Texas Lloyd’s Co. v. Menchaca , No. 13-13-00046-CV, 2014 WL
3804602 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 31, 2014, pet. filed). USAA and its
lawyers have dedicated many, many pages of briefing to the argument that a
plaintiff’s failure to obtain a breach of contract finding precludes the plaintiff’s
recovery of policy-benefit damages. Id . USAA lost that argument in Menchaca
(in an opinion it does not disclose), but USAA certainly understands what it takes
to brief the argument. And that is only one of several new arguments and issues
that USAA seeks to add to the case after it has been submitted.
For all of the reasons Mr. and Mrs. Hayes have argued in their brief of appellees, the Court should reject USAA’s challenges to the jury’s finding that
USAA failed to comply with the insurance policy. By affirming the trial court’s
judgment for Mr. and Mrs. Hayes based on the jury’s breach of contract findings,
the Court can avoid any need to address USAA’s failure to brief any argument
challenging Mr. and Mrs. Hayes’ recovery under the Insurance Code. See, e.g.,
United Nat. Ins. Co. v. AMJ Investments, LLC , 447 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. dism’d) (“If a property insurer fails to pay the full
amount of the claim as a result of an unfair claim-settlement practice under the
Insurance Code, the insured may elect to recover its damages under either a
breach-of-contract or a statutory-violation theory.”).
This case began in the court of appeals in February 2014. USAA filed its brief of appellant on September 26, 2014 and its reply brief on January 29, 2015,
and the case was argued and submitted on April 29, 2015. The Court should not
reopen the briefing after submission and allow USAA to add new issues,
arguments, and authorities at this late stage of the proceedings.
PRAYER Appellees, Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes, ask the Court to deny USAA’s motions for leave to file a supplemental brief as appellant and to exceed
the word limits. Appellees also pray for any other relief to which they may be
entitled.
Respectfully Submitted: T HE M OSTYN L AW F IRM H OGAN & H OGAN René M. Sigman By: /s/ Jennifer Bruch Hogan State Bar No. 24037492 Jennifer Bruch Hogan rmsigman@mostynlaw.com State Bar No. 03239100 3810 West Alabama Street jhogan@hoganfirm.com Houston, Texas 77027 Richard P. Hogan, Jr. 713.861.6616–telephone State Bar No. 09802010 713.861.8084–facsimile rhogan@hoganfirm.com James C. Marrow C ASHIOLA & B EAN State Bar No. 24013103 jmarrow@hoganfirm.com Randal Cashiola Pennzoil Place State Bar No. 03966802 711 Louisiana, Suite 500 rcashiola@cashiolabeanlaw.com Houston, Texas 77002 2090 Broadway Street, Suite A 713.222.8800–telephone Beaumont, Texas 77701-1944 713.222.8810–facsimile 409.813.1443–telephone
409.813.1467–facsimile
A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEES *8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was forwarded to all counsel of record by the Electronic Filing Service Provider, if
registered; a true and correct copy of this document was forwarded to all counsel
of record not registered with an Electronic Filing Service Provider and to all other
parties as follows:
Kevin G. Cain
Levon G. Hovnatanian
Christopher W. Martin
M ARTIN , D ISIERE , J EFFERSON
& W ISDOM , L.L.P.
808 Travis, 20th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Via TexFile
/s/ Jennifer Bruch Hogan Jennifer Bruch Hogan Dated: June 5, 2015