Trinty Universal Insurance Company v. Lilith Brainard

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 1, 2004
Docket07-03-00170-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Trinty Universal Insurance Company v. Lilith Brainard (Trinty Universal Insurance Company v. Lilith Brainard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trinty Universal Insurance Company v. Lilith Brainard, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

NO. 07-03-0170-CV


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL D


MARCH 1, 2004



______________________________


TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT


V.


LILITH BRAINARD, ET AL., APPELLEES


_________________________________


FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;


NO. 31,677; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.



OPINION



Presenting a sole issue, Trinity Universal Insurance Company challenges the award of attorney's fees to Lilith Brainard, Sally Brainard Wicker, E. Swasey Brainard, II, Amy Brainard, Berklee Brainard Clements, Sena Brainard and the Estate of Edward H. Brainard, II, following a jury trial seeking recovery upon Trinity's underinsured motorist (UIM) contract. By a sole cross issue, the Brainards contend the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on the $1,010,000 damages found by the jury as to the underinsured's conduct before offsetting prior settlements and PIP benefits. Because neither party presents any issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we will review only such history necessary to address the two questions of law presented. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we reverse and render in part and affirm in part.

Trinity issued an automobile liability policy to Brainard Cattle Company, E.S.F. Brainard, et al., for a policy period commencing August 26, 1998 through August 26, 1999. Among other provisions, the policy included an uninsured/underinsured motorists (UIM) insurance endorsement. On July 1, 1999, Edward H. Brainard, II, an insured under the policy, sustained fatal injuries in a head on collision with a motorized work over rig owned and operated by an employee of Premier. After the Brainards commenced their wrongful death action on January 19, 2000, against Premier and its employee, they discovered that the limits of liability insurance for Premier did not exceed one million dollars. This information prompted the Brainards to make a written claim for UIM benefits. Trinity acknowledged receipt of the claim and requested supporting information.

By their third amended petition the Brainards joined Trinity and, in addition to claims under articles 21.21 and 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code Annotated (Vernon Supp. & Pamph. Supp. 2004), claims for common law breach of duty of good faith/unfair settlement practices, and claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann., §§ 17.41 - 17.885 (Vernon 2002 & Supp. 2004), (DTPA), the Brainards alleged:

  • Plaintiffs are covered parties under this policy and have performed all conditions precedent to receiving benefits under the policy; and


  • Defendant Trinity is in breach of contract for failing to pay benefits. Its obligation to pay UIM benefits is not conditioned upon a judgment fixing such damages. The Defendant has an obligation to pay when its investigation reveals that there is no question as to liability and that damages exceed the policy limits of the responsible party. Defendant Trinity has information which makes it incumbent upon them to pay benefits, as there is no question of liability on the part of the other Defendants and that the damages far exceed the One Million dollars of insurance possessed by the other Defendants. This obligation became all the more apparent when the original Defendants delivered their policy limits on November 20, 2000.


The coverage provision of the UIM endorsement in the policy provides:

We will pay damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by an Insured, or property damage caused by an accident. The owner's or operator's liability for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.



Any judgment for damages arising out of a suit brought without our written consent is not binding on us. If we and you do not agree as to whether or not a vehicle is actually uninsured, the burden of proof as to that issue shall be on us.

Without admitting liability, the insurance carrier for Premier paid its policy limits of $1,000,000 to the Brainards in settlement and by order dated January 5, 2001, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the claims against Premier and its employee, but did not dismiss the claims against Trinity.

By order of June 11, 2001, among other things, the trial court denied Trinity's first motion for severance. However, on November 29, 2001, following our decision in In Re Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 64 S.W.3d 463 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding), the trial court granted Trinity's second motion for severance and/or plea in abatement in its entirety, effectively severing all extra-contractual claims, including Brainards' claims for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of articles 21.21 and 21.55 of the Insurance Code and violations of the DTPA.

Following a four day jury trial, a wrongful death charge was submitted to the jury. By its verdict, the jury awarded the surviving wife of the deceased $500,000 and each of the five children $100,000 and the estate $10,000 for funeral expenses, making the total award for actual damages $1,010,000. Also, the jury awarded reasonable attorney's fees to the Brainards in the amount of $100,000. Following motions for new trial and other post-judgment motions by both parties and after allowing an offset of $1,005,000, the trial court signed its judgment that the Brainards recover from Trinity the sum of $5,000 in damages and $100,000 in attorney's fees, but denied their request for prejudgment interest.

Two questions of law are presented for our determination, to-wit: (1) whether in an action on the UIM policy, an award of attorney's fees is authorized under section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Annotated (Vernon 1997); and (2) whether the Brainards were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest on the $1,010,000 in damages found by the jury as to the underinsured's conduct before offsetting prior settlements and PIP benefits.

Attorney's Fees

By its sole issue, Trinity contends the trial court erred in awarding the Brainards $100,000 in attorney's fees in conjunction with the prosecution of the UIM claim because there had been no determination of the operator's liability (and damages incurred by the Brainards) prior to the rendition of the judgment at issue. (1) We agree.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that attorney's fees may not be awarded "unless permitted by statute or by contract between the parties," and the availability of attorney's fees under a statute is a question of law. Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. 1999). In their prayer and without referencing any statutory authority or contractual provision as support or authority, the Brainards sought an award of attorney's fees.

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

Related

Menix v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
83 S.W.3d 877 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. Auld
34 S.W.3d 887 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Dillon v. Lintz
582 S.W.2d 394 (Texas Supreme Court, 1979)
Henson v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.
17 S.W.3d 652 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Franco v. Allstate Insurance Company
505 S.W.2d 789 (Texas Supreme Court, 1974)
Novosad v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.
881 S.W.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Collier
983 S.W.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Insurance Corp. of America v. Webster
906 S.W.2d 77 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Stracener v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
777 S.W.2d 378 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
Sikes v. Zuloaga
830 S.W.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Davis v. Campbell
572 S.W.2d 660 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)
Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc.
962 S.W.2d 507 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1 S.W.3d 91 (Texas Supreme Court, 1999)
In Re Trinity Universal Insurance Co.
64 S.W.3d 463 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Sprague v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
880 S.W.2d 415 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc.
696 S.W.2d 549 (Texas Supreme Court, 1985)
Whitehead v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
952 S.W.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Whitehead
988 S.W.2d 744 (Texas Supreme Court, 1999)
Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Cowan
945 S.W.2d 819 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Allstate Insurance v. Lincoln
976 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Trinty Universal Insurance Company v. Lilith Brainard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinty-universal-insurance-company-v-lilith-braina-texapp-2004.