Lewis v. Illinois Employers Insurance Co.

590 S.W.2d 119, 23 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 53, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 331
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 31, 1979
DocketB-8553
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 590 S.W.2d 119 (Lewis v. Illinois Employers Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lewis v. Illinois Employers Insurance Co., 590 S.W.2d 119, 23 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 53, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 331 (Tex. 1979).

Opinion

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The court of civil appeals has reversed the judgment of the trial court that had rendered a default judgment for the plaintiff, Shorty Ray Lewis, after striking the defendants’ pleadings as a sanction for their failure to answer interrogatories. 582 S.W.2d 242. Plaintiff Lewis filed suit on June 6, 1978, and then filed a request for admissions which were answered and filed ten days after the request. Plaintiff then served defendants with written interrogatories on July 14, but the defendants did not file their answers by August 13. See Rule 168, Tex.R.Civ.P. On August 28, plaintiff filed a motion that the trial court strike defendants’ pleadings and render default judgment for the plaintiff. On September 1, 1978, the defendants filed their answers, but the trial court, on the same day but after the answers were filed, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ pleadings and then rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Upon this state of the facts, the court of civil appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion. We approve that holding, but disapprove the broad dictum of that court that the sanctions authorized by Rule 215a(c) can be invoked only upon a party’s (1) filing a motion to compel answers to interrogatories, (2) which is followed by a court order which requires the answers, and (3) a failure to comply with that court order.

*120 Rule 168 requires such a procedure in the instance of one’s failure to answer particular interrogatories. When, however, a party wholly fails to answer any of the interrogatories, the propounding party may immediately move for the imposition of sanctions without first seeking and obtaining an order from the court requiring answers to interrogatories. This distinction between one’s failure to answer particular interrogatories and one’s complete failure to make answers is found in Rule 168.

If a party refuses to answer any interrogatory, the proponent of the question may, upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, apply to the court in which the action is pending for an order compelling an answer. Reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in obtaining the order or opposing the motion may be assessed, and a refusal to comply with the order shall authorize the court to act, as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 215a.
If a party, except for good cause shown, fails to serve answers to interrogatories after proper service of such inter-. rogatories, the court in which the action is pending may, on motion and notice, make such orders as are just, including those authorized by paragraph (c) of Rule 215a.

The application for writ of error is accordingly refused, no reversible error. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc.
372 S.W.3d 177 (Texas Supreme Court, 2012)
Neal v. Wisconsin Hard Chrome, Inc.
173 S.W.3d 891 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Hamill v. Level
900 S.W.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Mackey v. Bradley Motors, Inc.
871 S.W.2d 243 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Hogan v. Credit Motors, Inc.
827 S.W.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Henry Wu, Inc. v. Rex Machinery Movers, Inc.
802 S.W.2d 96 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Lehtonen v. Clarke
784 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Fiduciary Mortgage Co. v. City Natl. Bank of Irving
762 S.W.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Drozd Corp. v. Capitol Glass & Mirror Co.
741 S.W.2d 221 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Chemical Exchange Industries, Inc. v. Vasquez
709 S.W.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Ismail v. Ismail
702 S.W.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Evans v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
685 S.W.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
City of Houston v. Arney
680 S.W.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Wiley v. Browning
670 S.W.2d 729 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Notgrass v. Equilease Corp.
666 S.W.2d 635 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Fears v. Mechanical & Industrial Technicians, Inc.
654 S.W.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Pearson Corp. v. Wichita Falls Boys Club Alumni Ass'n
633 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
National Surety Corp. v. Rushing
628 S.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Bass v. Duffey
620 S.W.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
590 S.W.2d 119, 23 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 53, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-illinois-employers-insurance-co-tex-1979.