Moser v. Tex. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 13-19-00452-CV |
| Parties | WILLIAM MOSER, DREAMA GREENE, MATTHEW MOODY, INDIVIDUALLY, MATTHEW MOODY AS LEGAL GUARDIANAND NEXT FRIEND OF EMILY MOODY, A MINOR, AND MATTHEW MOODY ASLEGAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIENDOF MARILYN MOODY, A MINOR, Appellants, v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
The trial court denied appellants' William Moser, Dreama Greene, Matthew Moody, Individually and as Legal Guardian and Next Friend of Emily Moody and Marilyn Moody, minors (collectively, the Heirs'), motion for summary judgment on a declaratory action. The order ruled that appellee, Texas Farm Bureau (TFB), offered its insurance policy limits on multiple occasions, thus halting its liability for accruing post-judgment interest on a March 22, 2018, jury judgment for $11, 885, 974.35 in favor of the Heirs.
By five issues which we re-organize and consolidate into four, the Heirs argue: (1) that the trial court erred in denying its traditional motion for summary judgment on declaratory judgment because TFB's Supplemental Payment Provision of the insurance policy was ambiguous, and also because TFB's offers were conditional, made prior to judgment and were for less than the amount owed; (2) that TFB had no right to interpleader; (3) that TFB had unclean hands; and (4) that the Heirs did not owe TFB a "legal duty to instruct it how to practice law." We affirm.
On December 8, 2014, Christopher Floyd collided head-on with a vehicle, resulting in the deaths of driver Faye Moser and her passenger Teresa Moody. Floyd had an auto liability insurance policy with TFB, Policy # 23024769, with bodily injury policy limits of $30, 000 per person and $60, 000 per accident.
On March 9, 2015, TFB received a Stowers demand letter from Dreama Greene and William Moser, the heirs of Moser, and Matthew Moody, Emily Moody, and Marilyn Moody, the heirs of Moody. See Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929, holding approved) ( that an insurer has the duty to exercise ordinary care in the settlement of claims to protect its insureds against judgments in excess of policy limits). TFB accepted the Stowers demand on March 23, 2015, and made a settlement offer. In its acceptance letter, TFB sought information concerning the beneficiaries and the amount to pay each beneficiary.
On May 19, 2015, TFB sent email correspondence to follow-up on its March 23, 2015 acceptance of the Heirs' Stowers demand. In its correspondence, TFB asked, On June 30, 2015, TFB sent another follow-up email correspondence regarding the case: "Please let us know a status and if there is anything else that you need from us at this point to get this one finalized."
The Heirs responded on June 30, 2015, stating that they were awaiting the fatality packet from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). On September 15, 2015, the Heirs indicated that they were still awaiting the DPS information packet, with their legal representative noting:
Without further communication, the Heirs filed suit against TFB. On December 22, 2017, heirs Greene and Moody sent another Stowers demand letter.[1] TFB accepted this demand on January 3, 2018, and offered policy limits in return for a full and final release from any and all claims. On January 4, 2018, Greene and Moody "respectfully decline[d]" TFB's "counteroffer" for policy limits.
The jury trial commenced on January 29, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the jury returned a verdict of $11, 885, 974.35 in favor of the Heirs.[2]
The trial court held a hearing on a motion to enter judgment on March 21, 2018. At the hearing, TFB asked the Heirs if they had a breakdown of how they wanted the checks issued. Counsel for the Heirs replied that they were not prepared with that information. TFB then offered to put checks in the amount of the policy limits and court costs into the registry of the court. TFB explained on the record that it wanted to tender payment "immediately" so that post-judgment interest would not accrue. TFB's insurance policy had a "Supplemental Payment Provision," which provided that the insurer was required to pay post-judgment interest accruing on any judgment against the insured. The policy, however, had a limitation. The relevant language of the policy follows:
(Emphasis in original).
The trial court signed a final judgment the next day on March 22, 2018. On March 23, 2018, TFB issued two checks in the amount of $30, 000 each. The first check was issued to Moser and Greene, and stated, "In Full Payment For On Behalf of Faye Moser."
(Image Omitted)
The other check was issued to Matthew, Emily, and Marilyn Moody, and it provided, "In Full Payment For On Behalf of Teresa Moody."
(Image omitted)
TFB also issued a check for $5, 834.35 for court costs. The letter enclosing the checks asked the Heirs' counsel to "[p]lease contact [TFB] in the event that the checks need to be reissued per Plaintiffs' distribution amount."
On March 23, 2018, counsel for the Heirs responded to TFB, writing Counsel for TFB responded via written correspondence on March 29, 2018, urging the Heirs to discuss what specific concerns they had regarding the checks and reiterating TFB's desire to tender policy limits.
On May 23, 2018, TFB filed an interpleader seeking to deposit three checks in the total amount of $65, 834.35 into the registry of the court. TFB contended that interpleader was necessary so that it could meet its obligations to the judgment creditor defendants. TFB argued that it consistently offered its limits of liability "pre-suit, pre-trial, post-verdict, and post-judgment." The Heirs answered the petition in interpleader and also filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. In this joint answer and counterclaim, the Heirs asserted that they not only wanted the limits of liability from TFB in "proper tender," but also over $700, 000 in post-judgment interest, increasing at a rate of $1, 709.63 per day, because TFB failed to tender its checks properly.
TFB answered the counterclaim and generally denied all assertions by the Heirs. It proclaimed that it attempted to pay policy limits "on multiple occasions even prior to the initiation of a lawsuit" and repeatedly attempted to pay after the trial "only to be met with utter silence."
TFB filed a motion for summary judgment on its interpleader on June 18, 2019, and the Heirs filed a countermotion for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment on July 10, 2019. The trial court conducted a hearing on both motions for summary judgment. On August 19, 2019, the trial court granted TFB's summary judgment motion on interpleader, while denying the Heirs' declaratory action summary judgment. The order provided that TFB owed $64, 834.35 to the Heirs ($30, 000 to the Moser heirs, $30, 000 to the Moody heirs, plus $5, 834.35 in court costs), and no post-judgment interest. TFB tendered these proceeds into the registry of the court.
On September 17, 2019, TFB filed a motion to sever wherein it sought to sever the interpleader action.[3] The trial court granted the motion to sever on November 13, 2019. The motion to sever resulted in two trial court causes: 2018DCV-2714-A, which now contains the issue of the division of the policy proceeds deposited into the registry of the court, and 2019DCV-5885-A, which is the source of this appeal.[4]
By their first issue, the Heirs argue the trial court erred in denying their traditional motion for summary judgment on their declaratory action.
We review an order granting summary judgment on a de novo standard, "taking as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulging every reasonable inference in the nonmovant's favor." JLB Builders, L.L.C. v. Hernandez, 622 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Tex. 2021) (citing Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005)). To be entitled to traditional summary judgment, the movant has the burden to prove that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hillis v. McCall, 602 S.W.3d 436, 439-40 (Tex. 2020); Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c).
"When both sides move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should review both sides' summary judgment evidence and determine all questions presented." Tex. Mut. Ins Co. v. PHI Air Med., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Tex. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-748, 2021...
To continue reading
Request your trial