Ken Gazian v. Worth Casualty Company, Worth Claims Services, and Redpoint Insurance Group

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00325-CV

KEN GAZIAN, APPELLANT

V.

WORTH CASUALTY COMPANY, WORTH CLAIMS SERVICES, AND REDPOINT INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLEES

On Appeal from the 348th District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-361750-25, Honorable Megan Fahey, Presiding

August 27, 2026

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant, Ken Gazian, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Defendants’

Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss.1 Because the order is not a final, appealable judgment, we abate the appeal and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

1 This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.

Gazian, sued Appellees, Worth Casualty Company, Worth Claims Services, and Redpoint Insurance Group, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud, violations of Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code, and a request for declaratory relief. Subsequently, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss Gazian’s “cause of action” under Rule 91a of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion, however, did not specify which claim or claims Appellees sought to dismiss. By order of June 12, 2025, the trial court granted the motion, stating “Plaintiff Ken Gazian’s cause of action against Defendants is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 91a.” The order likewise failed to specify which of Gazian’s several causes of action were dismissed. Gazian appealed.

Generally, with few statutory exceptions, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When there has been no conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties. Id. at 205. If an appellate court is uncertain about the intent of an order to finally dispose of all claims and parties, it can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court. Id. at 206.

The Order Granting Defendants’ Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss does not contain any finality language as expressed in Lehmann nor does it expressly dispose of all parties and claims. Without a final judgment for review, this appeal is premature and we are without appellate jurisdiction. As an alternative to dismissal, however, we may abate a premature appeal to allow the trial court to cure a jurisdictional defect, particularly when only the ministerial act of making a judgment final remains. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2

3

(“The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.”); Palma v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2020) (discussing clarifying order confirming final judgment).

Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to clarify whether the Order Granting Defendants’ Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss is a final judgment and, if necessary, to permit the parties to obtain an order disposing of all claims and parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s clarifying order, and any other necessary orders, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court by September 28, 2026.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam