New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 05 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. D-0046,D-0046 |
| Citation | 799 S.W.2d 677,34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 146 |
| Parties | NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY and David Sampson, Petitioners, v. Raul SANCHEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Anne Gardner, Edward L. Wilkinson, Fort Worth, for petitioners.
Bill Bingham, Fort Worth, for respondent.
This application presents the jurisdictional problem of an attempted appeal from an interlocutory trial court order. Because the lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error, we grant the application, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and render judgment as the court of appeals should have, dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Raul Sanchez brought the present action against New York Underwriters and David Sampson, the company claims agent handling his worker's compensation claim, for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Sanchez further alleged he was entitled to recover under Article 21.21 of the Insurance Code and under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 17.41-.63 (Vernon 1987 & Supp.1990) (DTPA).
New York Underwriters filed a motion for summary judgment. Before the summary judgment motion was set for hearing, it also filed an amended answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim asserted that under section 17.50 of the DTPA it was entitled to defendant's attorneys' fees as to the DTPA cause of action for a groundless and bad faith claim.
The trial court rendered an "Order on Summary Judgment" granting "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" and decreeing "that Plaintiff take nothing by his claims against NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY and DAVID SAMPSON, and go hence without day, with costs to be taxed against Plaintiff." The judgment neither mentions nor disposes of New York Underwriter's DTPA § 17.50 counterclaim for attorneys' fees.
Sanchez filed a motion for new trial, which was heard but on which there was no express ruling. Sanchez filed an appeal bond. The court of appeals took jurisdiction of the cause as if there were a final judgment, and reversed and remanded the summary judgment. 788 S.W.2d 916. In fairness to the court of appeals, we note that the parties briefed the case as if the summary judgment were final and appealable, just as they have in this court.
In the absence of a special statute making an interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in the case, including those presented by counterclaim or cross action, to be ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bandera Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...in the case, including those presented by counterclaims or cross action, to be final and appealable." New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.1990) (emphasis In Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993), the court stated that "[i]f a summary judgment order appea......
-
United Statesa Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca
...of subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time on appeal."); N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez , 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) ("The court of appeals' assumption of appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order when not expre......
-
In re J.F.C.
...(holding that standing is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990) (holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error); McCauley, 304 S.W.2d at 265-66 (applying fundamen......
-
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
...(per curiam). 50. Id. 51. 644 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1982) (per curiam). 52. Id. at 454. 53. Id. 54. See New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Young v. Hodde, 682 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. 1984) (per curiam); Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 658 S.......