Robert Lee Clark v. Bristol West Insurance Services of Texas, Inc.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00276-CV
Robert Lee CLARK, Appellant
v.
BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC., Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 341523 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice (concurring in the judgment only) Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 26, 2012
AFFIRMED
Appellant Robert Lee Clark, who appears in this court pro se, brought suit against
appellee Bristol West Insurance Services of Texas, Inc. (“Bristol West”), alleging claims for
breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and the
Texas Insurance Code. Bristol West filed a no evidence motion for summary judgment, which
the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 04-11-00276-CV
BACKGROUND
Clark has a personal automobile insurance policy through Bristol West. During the time
the policy was in effect, Clark’s pickup truck was struck by another vehicle in Massachusetts.
Clark made a claim under the policy for property damage to the truck.
The truck was taken to Woodworth Chevrolet in Massachusetts for repairs. Although
Clark now contends he did not authorize the repairs, Clark conceded in his First Amended
Petition that he authorized the repairs. Bristol West initially tendered $5,942.63 to Clark and
Woodworth Chevrolet for the repairs, and Woodworth Chevrolet began making repairs. Soon
thereafter, Woodworth Chevrolet advised that additional repairs were needed, so Bristol West
tendered another $1,850.15.
After the body work was completed, Clark had concerns about the frame of the truck,
believing it was not properly repaired. Based on Clark’s concerns, the truck was sent to a second
body shop for evaluation and any necessary additional repairs. Despite this, after Clark picked
up the truck to return to Texas, it became apparent there was still a problem with the truck’s
frame. Upon return to Texas, Clark took the truck to a third body shop, which determined the
repairs made by the shops in Massachusetts were cosmetic, affecting only the appearance of the
truck without actually repairing the damage to the frame. The Texas body shop concluded the
frame would have to be replaced as a result of the faulty workmanship. Thereafter, Bristol West
concluded the truck was a total loss, but contended it was not covered by Clark’s policy because
the damage resulted from negligent repairs by one or both of the Massachusetts repair shops,
rather than the automobile accident.
After Bristol West informed Clark that the total loss of the truck was not covered by the
policy, Clark filed suit against Bristol West for breach of contract and violations of the DTPA
-2- 04-11-00276-CV
and the Texas Insurance Code. Ultimately, Bristol West filed a no evidence motion for summary
judgment, asserting there was no evidence of an essential element of each of Clark’s claims.
Clark filed a response, but there was no summary judgment evidence attached to the response.
The trial court granted Bristol West’s no evidence motion for summary judgment, and Clark
thereafter perfected this appeal.
ANALYSIS
We begin by holding that Clark has failed to present anything for our review due to
inadequate briefing. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and
must comply with the applicable rules of procedure. Paself v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 611
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 2007, no pet.); Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52–53 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1999, pet. denied). A pro se litigant must properly present her case on appeal, that is, in
accordance with the mandates of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d
at 845. If held otherwise, pro se litigants would have an unfair advantage over those represented
by counsel. Id.; Shull, 4 S.W.3d at 53.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the required contents and organization
for an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Clark’s brief fails to meet the basic
requirements of Rule 38.1, as it contains no record citations, no citation to legal authority, and no
substantive, legal argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Accordingly, Clark’s “issues” are
overruled due to inadequate briefing.
However, even if we were to review the no evidence motion for summary judgment for
substance, we would affirm the summary judgment in favor of Bristol West. A no evidence
motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(i) is essentially a motion for a pretrial directed
-3- 04-11-00276-CV
verdict. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex.
2009). After an adequate time for discovery, a party without the burden of proof may, without
presenting evidence, seek summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to support
one or more essential elements of the nonmovant’s claims. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); All Am. Tel.,
Inc. v. USLD Commc’ns, 291 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). The
motion must specifically state the elements for which there is no evidence. Id. The trial court is
required to grant the motion unless the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of summary
judgment evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact. Id. More than a scintilla of
evidence exists when the evidence “rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded
people to differ in their conclusions.” Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706,
711 (Tex. 1997).
We have reviewed Bristol West’s no evidence motion for summary judgment and hold it
meets the requirements of Rule 166a(i) in that it asserts there is no evidence of a specific element
of each of Clark’s causes of action. Thus, Clark was required to produce more than a scintilla of
summary judgment evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on each of the challenged
elements. Clark failed to meet his burden because although he filed a response to the motion, he
did not attach any supporting summary judgment evidence. A nonmovant “must produce
summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact to defeat” a no evidence
motion for summary judgment. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004).
Given Clark’s failure to attach any summary judgment evidence to his response, we hold the trial
court properly granted Bristol West’s no evidence motion for summary judgment. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 166a(i).
-4- 04-11-00276-CV
CONCLUSION
Clark failed to properly brief this matter, and therefore has presented nothing for our
review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Robert Lee Clark v. Bristol West Insurance Services of Texas, Inc. (Robert Lee Clark v. Bristol West Insurance Services of Texas, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.