Derek Lai and Ching Wang Chu v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 22, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00849-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 22, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 22, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00849-CV

DEREK LAI AND CHING WANG CHU, Appellants

V.

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 819,288

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Derek Lai and Ching Wang Chu, appellants, appeal the trial court=s grant of summary judgment in favor of Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, appellee.  However, because the order granting summary judgment is interlocutory, we dismiss the appeal as we have no jurisdiction. 

Appellants sued appellee alleging multiple causes of action including a claim for  uninsured motorist coverage and a claim for damages pursuant to article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code for appellee=s alleged failure to make payment under medical payments coverage.  Appellee moved for summary judgment only on the uninsured motorist cause of action seeking no summary judgment relief on any other causes of action.  Appellants understood that the motion did not involve article 21.55 claims or the medical payments coverage, as they pointed out in their response to appellee=s motion for summary judgment.  Appellants contend, however, that the order is final because it contains language stating that plaintiff will Atake nothing by reason of their suit against [appellee],@ and because it has the word Aclosed@ stamped^[1] at the top of the page.  This is not enough.

In Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., the supreme court held that Athe language of an order or judgment can make it final, even though it should have been interlocutory.@  39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).  But, it is not enough that the order merely uses words indicating finality; it must expressly dispose of all claims and all parties.  Id.  Also, an order carries no presumption of finality if issued before a trial.  Id. at 199B200.

The order below  is  not final because it does not actually dispose of all claims and all parties. See id. at 200. Unresolved claims are outstanding, and both parties filed motions regarding summary judgment with that express knowledge.  Appellants continue to maintain the right to recover on the unaddressed claims, and appellee continues to understand the order to be interlocutory and to treat it as such. 

In light of the foregoing, the order is interlocutory and we have no jurisdiction.  We dismiss the appeal.

/s/      Wanda McKee Fowler

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 22, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Frost and Seymore.

---

^[1]  This stamp designates that the cause has been closed, and presumably removed from the trial court=s files and placed in storage.