R e lia S ta r L if e In s u r a n c e C o m p a n y w a s f o r m e r ly k n o w n a s U n ite d O lym p ic L if e In s u r a n c e C o m p a n y. 1 A t va rio u s p o i n ts th ro u g h o u t t h e re c o rd , G u y S p a rk m a n re fe rs to R e l i a S ta r a s “U n i te d .” W e w ill re fe r to R e l i a S ta r L i fe In s u ra n c e C o m p a n y a s “R e l i a S ta r.” 

### NUM BER 13-03- 500- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
GUY SPA RK M A N, A pp ellan t,
v . REL IASTA R LIF E IN SUR A NC E C OM PA NY, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 7 th D istrict Co urt of Smit h Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s T his case be gan as an int erplea der actio n. App ellee, ReliaStar Life Insu rance Com pan y

(“ ReliaSta r”) , receiv ed co mp eting claims f rom Gu y Sparkm an a nd his son, Larry 1 Spar kman, re g ardin g the proceed s o f four annui ty pol ic ies

. Rel iaS tar

th en fil ed anG uy i s app ear i ng p r o se. 2 O ur rec i t ati on of t he fac t s i n t hi s ca s e i s ne c es s ari l y l i m i t ed by t he i nc om pl ete ap pe l l ate rec ord 3 c u r r e n tly b e f o r e u s . A s w e d is c u s s in m o r e d e ta il la te r in th is o p in io n , t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t in c lu d e R e lia S ta r ’s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t e v id e n c e . T h e f o llo w in g b a c k g r o u n d is d r a w n p r im a r ily f r o m G u y’s a n s w e r , c o u n te r c la im , a n d c ro s s -c l a i m a n d fro m a n a ff i d a v i t h e fi l e d i n re s p o n s e to R e l i a S ta r’s m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 2 int er ple ader

ac ti on nami ng Guy

and Lar ry

Spar kman a s i nter ple aderd e f endants

. Guy
answered, a ll eg ed multi p le co u n te rcl a im s a gai n stRe lia St a r, an d co n tes ted R eli aStar’s r ig ht to i nter ple ad th e funds. H e al so ass erted c ro ss -c lai ms ag ain st Lar ry . The tr ial co urt al low ed R eli aStar to int er ple ad th e annui ty proce e d s a n d g ra nted Rel iaS tar

su mmary

judg ment on Guy ’s co untercl aims

. After Rel iaS tar w as dis mis sed from the a cti on, L a rryfail ed to appear for t ri al, and the t ri al cour t aw arded G uy

the dis puted funds i n the cour

t’ s re g is tr

y as a resul t of Lar ry ’s default

. Al thoug h Guy w as aw arded t he int er ple aded funds, he now appeals the summar

y judg ment dis charg ing Reli aStar f ro m the
cas e. F or

the follo w ing reason s, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND 3 Guy ca re d for his el der ly

mother , W il li e R essegi e u , p rior to her deat h i n 1996. Al thoug h R ess eg ieu w as n e ver di ag nosed by

a do cto r, Guy

bel iev ed s he had adv anced sy mp tom s of

dem ent ia and Alz heim er’s disea se. Accordin g to Gu y , she ha d no busine ss ex per ie n ce , and she reli ed on him to ha ndl e al l her bus ine ss deal ing s, inc lud ing her finance s. Guy ’s so n, La rr

y , w as Rel iaS tar ’s employ ee. In 1988, Larr y approache d Guy

about buying insuran ce w ith Ressegieu’s savings. Guy claims th at h e r e f u s e d to purch ase ins urance, but he ag re ed to us e R ess eg ieu ’s sa v ing s t o purchas e annui ty pol ic ies w it h the
ex press co ndi ti on th at he be d esi g nated as the b enefici ar y on t he pol ic ies

. Guy

al leg es that he dis cus sed the is sue w it h Res seg ieu , and she ag re ed. Ac cordin g ly , G uy i nst ru cte dT EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § § 1 7 .4 1 -.6 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 & S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 4 R el i aSt ar ’ s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent r ef er enced t he ev i dence f i l ed wi t h t he t r i al cour t , whi ch 5 i n c l u d e d te s ti m o n y a n d d o c u m e n ta ry e v i d e n c e . 3 Lar ry to purchas e the annui ty pol ic ies and to na me Guy as the benefic iar

y . Acc ordin g to Guy , Lar ry nev er del iv ered th e annui ty

pol ic ies to him or

to Res seg ieu

. Lar ry , how e ver, a ss u re d Guy thathe w as the n amed benefic iar y . Guy di d notse e the pol ic ies unti l after Res segie u d ie d

. It w as then that he di sc ov ered th at La rr y had been named as the benefic iar y on t he c ontract s. Guy noti fied R eli aSta r o f

h is claim to t he proceed s, but R eli aStar di d notpay

the proceed s to Guyor Larr y . Rat her , R eli aStar

w ait ed approx imat ely

four y ears t o fil e the i nst ant i nter ple ader ac ti on. Base d on the a bov e al leg ati ons, w hen R eli aStar fi l e d t h e i n t e rp lea der

ac ti on s eeki ng to de posi t t he annu ity policy p ro ceeds i nto t he tr ial co urt’ s reg is tr y , G uy as ser ted count er cl aims ag ain st Re li aStar and cross -c lai ms ag ain st Lar ry for k now ing and int enti onal
v iolation s of

the T exas Deceptive Trad e Practice s Act (“D T PA”), neglig ence and g ross 4 neg li g ence, v iol ati ons of t he common- law duty of g ood faith and fair deal ing , v iol ati ons of former ar ti cl es 21.21 and 21. 55 of th e T e xas I nsurance Cod e, c ommon-l aw fraud, and breach of f idu ci ar

y duty

. He ass erted c lai ms for d amag es and for ex emplar y damag es und er these theo ries. Rel iaS tar

fil ed a moti on for summar y jud g ment on both no- ev ide nce and t ra dit ion al g ro unds, al leg ing thati t w as enti tl ed to inter ple ad th e annui ty pol icy proceed s a nd at tac ki ng near ly ev er y element of each of Guy ’s clai ms. Separat e from t he moti on i tse lf, R eli aStar also f iled sub stan tial evi den ce in supp ort of its mo tion. T his evidence does not app ear in 5 the c ler k’ s record on appeal

. Guy filed a respon se, att achi ng an a ff ida v itand pur por ti ng to inco rporate ReliaStar’s sum ma ry judgmen t evi d e n c e by referen ce. Guy then f iled his4

ow n moti on for summar y judg ment w it hout attac hin g anysuppor ti ng ev ide nce. Thi s mot ion also pu rported to incorpo rate ReliaS tar’s sum ma ry judgmen t evi den ce an d the af f id a vit attac hed t o Guy ’s respon se to R eli aStar ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment. On August 20, 200 1, the trial court g rante d ReliaSta r’s mo ti o n fo r s u mm ary judgme nt, e x pressly statin g tha t “there is no summ ary judgme nt ev iden ce tha t w ill perm it the v arious claim s mad e by Guy Sparkm an a gain st ReliaSta r to surv iv e the summ ary jud g ment c hal len g e.” O n Sept ember 12, 2001, the tr ial co urt i ss ued a suppl emental order g ra nti ng R eli aStar ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment, cl ar ify ing that : ( 1 ) the mot ion w as g ra nted in it s e ntire ty; ( 2 ) Gu y w as to t ake nothi ng by hi s c lai ms ag ain st Rel iaS tar ; ( 3) Rel iaS tar

wa s “e n ti tl ed to depos itthe proceed s o f the annui ty pol ic ies , t og ether

w it h
acc umulat ed i nterest , i nto t he R eg is tr y of the C our

t and to be rele ased from furth er l iab il ity re lat ing to the p oli ci es at i ss ue” ; and ( 4) R eli aStar w as ex cus ed from a ny furth er participa tion in th e trial of the cause. On Septe mb er 21, 200 1, the trial court den ied Gu y ’s
cross -mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, ex press ly

st ati ng thati t had co nsidered th e moti on and the “Respo nse b y

Plaintif f . . . ReliaStar Life Insu rance Comp any.” The cas e the n proceed ed to tri al to deter mine w ho, as betw een Guy and Lar ry , w as enti tl ed to the proceed s. Larr y fail ed to appear

for t ri al. Thus , t he tr ial co urt found t hat b y his default , Lar ry

admi tted Guy ’s al leg ati ons. The tri al cour t rendered i ts final j udg ment on Ma y 1, 2003. The j udg ment s tates thaton N ov ember 6, 2001, R eli aStar

“ depos it ed th e re q uired funds (t otal ing $34,907 .17) w it h the Di str ict C ler k .

. . as sh ow n by the ‘ Not ic e of Fi ling of A ffi

davit of Juli e D ra dy Reg ar

din g C alc ula ti

on of the Am ount Dep osited by ReliaSta r Life Insu rance Com pan y. ’” (emp hasis i n origi nal). T he clerk’s record, h owev er, does not c ontai n thi s aff ida v it

. The ju dg ment aw arded G uy the enti re amount of the funds5

on depo si t i n the co urt’ s reg is tr y a lo n g w it h any

ac cr ued i nterest

. Guy fil ed a moti on to modify , c or re ct, or

reform the j udg ment, w hic h the tr ial co urt den ied

. Guy then file d the instan t app eal. II. A N AL Y S IS Guy ch all eng es the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment by

four is sues . W it hin hi s first is sue, Guy
ra is es mult ipl e s ub- is sues . He arg ues the t ri al cour t er ro neous ly

dete rmi ned t hat R eli aStar
w as an i nnoce nt s tak ehol der enti tl ed to the benefits of int er ple ader

. Addi ti onal ly , he argues t hatReliaStar’s “tradition al” mot ion for sum ma ry judgmen t failed to conclusively demonst ra te al l ele ments of its d e f e n se s or to de monstrate t hat t here w as no g enui ne is sue of mater ial factas to ele ments of Guy ’s clai ms. F urther more, he a rg ues that the t ri al court errone ously granted ReliaStar sum ma ry judgmen t on his claim s for DTPAv iolation s, neglig e n c e a n d gross negli gence, b reach of the com mo n law

duty of g ood faith a nd fair de a l i n g , v i o l a t i o n s o f fo r me r a rt i c l e s 2 1

. 2 1 a n d 2 1

. 2 5 o f t h e Te x a s I n s u ra n ce Cod e, c o m m o n la w f ra u d , a n d b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u t y. By his secon d issue, Guy argues tha t the trial court improp erly d e n ie d his crossmo tion fo r sum ma ry judgme nt. His third i ssue alleges tha t the trial court i m p ro perly perm itted ReliaStar to d epo sit only a po rtion of the pro ceed s on the ann uity p o li c ie s. Fi nal ly , G uy ’s fourt h i ss ue as ser ts thatthe tr ial courterroneous ly deni ed Gu y ’s moti on to modify , c or re ct, or

reform the final j udg ment, w hic h w as als o based on hi s a rg ument t hat ReliaSta r fa iled to de posit a ll the proce eds. A . St and ard o f Rev iew T he sta nda rds of

rev iew for tradition al and no-eviden c e s u mm aryjudgmen ts are
w ell es tabl is hed. Ja c k s o n v . T e x. D ep t

. o f

P u b

. S a fety , 2 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 5 4 , 7 5 7 (T e x.6

App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2007, pet. f il ed)

. A mov ant for tradi ti onal su mmary

j udg ment has the burden t o es tabl is h tha t t here are no mater ial iss u e s of fact . T EX . R. C IV . P. 166 a(c); Rho ne- Poulenc, Inc . v

. Steel , 997 S.W .2d 217, 222 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Me rcier v. Sw. B ell

Yel low P a g es, In c. , 21 4 S. W .3 d 77 0, 7 73 ( Tex

. Ap p. –C or pu s C hr i s ti 2 00 7, n o pe t. )

. Ev iden ce fav orable t o t h e non- mov ant w il l be ta ken as tr ue, e v er y reason abl e i nferenc e w il l be indu lged in the no n-mo v ant ’s fa v or, and d o u b t s m ust be resolv ed in th e no n-mo v ant ’s fav or . Pr

ovid e n t L if

e & Ac cident Ins . C o. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 3)

. In c ontrast , a no- ev ide n ce summar y j udg ment i s t he s ame as a pretr ial di re cte d
v erdict, and w e apply

the same leg al suffici ency st andard on re v iew

. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tam ez , 206 S. W .3d 5 72, 5 82 ( Tex . 200 6) ; Or tega v. City Nat 'l

Bank , 97 S.W .3d 7 65, 7 72 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p e t. ) (o p. on reh'g ). W e rev iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant. City of Ke lle r v. W il son , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 25 (Tex . 200 5) . The non- mov ant must p ro duce ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact i n order

to defeat a no -e v ide nce summar y j udg ment. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166 a(i). The non- mov ant mus t merel y p ro duce a s ci nti ll a of probati v e ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact. Or tega , 97 S.W .3d a t 772

. “L ess than a s ci nti lla o f evidence e x ists w hen the evidence is ‘ so w eak a s t o do no m ore tha n create a me re surmise or suspicion of a fact.’” Id. (quo ti n g Ki ndr ed v . C on/Chem , Inc. , 650 S. W .2d 6 1, 63 ( Tex . 198 3) ). M ore tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen t he ev ide nce “r is es to a lev el tha t w ould ena ble reaso nab le and fair-mind ed p eop le to dif fer in their conclu sions.” Id. (ci ti n g Tr ansp. Ins . C o. v

. Mor iel , 879 S.W .2d 10, 25 (Tex

. 1994) ). To deter mine w hether the n on- mov ant h as met i ts burden, w e rev iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant, credi ti ng su ch ev ide nce that re asona ble jurors c oul d c re ditandA ddi t i onal l y , under hi s fi r st i ssue, G uy ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t shou l d no t hav e al l owed Rel i aSt ar 6 t o i nt er pl ead t he f unds because R el i aSt ar f ai l ed t o de posi t al l the p roc ee ds fr om t he f ourpol i ci es wi t h t he cour t

. As G uy al so r ai ses t hi s ar gum ent sepa r at el y und er hi s t hi r d i ssue, we wi l l not di scuss i t und er i ssue one. 7 dis re g ardin g cont ra ry ev ide nce unl ess re asona ble jurors coul d not

. Tam ez , 206 S.W .3d at 58 2; City of K

ell er , 168 S.W .3d a t 827

. “W hen bot h p a rtie s mov e for summar y j udg ment, and t he tr ial co urt g ra nts one moti on and deni es the o ther , w e w il l re v iew both parti es' summary

judg ment ev ide nce and det ermin e all questions th at are prese nte d.” Jacks on , 243 S.W .3d a t 757 ( ci ti ng FM Props. Ope ratingCo . v. City of Austin , 22 S.W .3d 868, 872 (Tex

. 2000) ). The cour t s houl d render the j udg ment t hat t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e rende re d

. Id. If the t ri al cour t di d notst ate the spec ificgrounds for i ts g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment, w e may

aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng if any of the t heor ies present ed i n the moti on for summar y j udg ment are mer it or iou s. Id. B. A v ailab ili ty

o f In te rp lead er By hi s f irst is sue, Guyarg ues that Re li aStar did not demonstrate it w as an “ inn ocent sta kehol der ,” w hic h he ass erts w as re q uired before the tr ial co urt c oul d al low R eli aStar

to int er ple ad funds int o the co urt’ s reg is tr y . He all eg es that Rel iaS tar w as not a di si nterest ed sta kehol der

bec ause Rel iaS tar : (1) fail ed to promptl y f il e its inter ple ader

acti on; ( 2) ac ted neg li g entl y

i n s uper v is ing Lar ry

by fail ing to ensure that the pol ic ies w ere del iv ered to Guy and Ressegieu; an d (3) fa iled t o p ro m p t ly pay the procee ds to Gu y af ter Ressegieu’s death. W e w il l address eac h arg ument i n tur n.

6 1. Ti meli ness o f In te rp lead er Guy arg ues that he not ified Reli aStar of his cl aim to the annui ty pol ic ies ’ proceed s on October

14, 1996, but R eli aStar di d notfile i ts i n te rp lea der ac ti on unt il Ju ne 6, 2000. He argues tha t ReliaSta r sho uld noth ave b een e ntitled t o inte rplead the f und s beca use it8

unreason abl y

del ay ed th e fil ing of it s i nter ple ader ac ti on. T he T exas Suprem e Court, h o we ver, has reject ed th e no tion th at un reaso nab le d e la y m e a n s a st a k e h o ld e r c a n n e ve r i n t e rp le a d d is p u t e d f u n d s in t o a co u rt ’s re gi s t ry: [I ] n t e r p l e a d e r i s n o t i m p ro p e r m e re l y b e c a u s e i t i s d e l a y e d ; w h i l e s om e cour ts hav e li ste d prompt fili ng as an i nter ple ader req uirement, the r ule s o f procedu re req uire onl y co nflicti ng cl aim s. W hen r iv al cl aims ex is t, cour ts m u s td e c i d e w h o ge t s t h e p ro c e e d s n o m a t t e r h o w ta rd y t h e d e p o s it ; we canno t s impl y

“ tos s t he money

bac k o ut t he c ler k' s w ind ow ,” or retur n i t to a sta kehol der

w ho mak es no c lai m to i t. State F ar mLife Ins. C o. v

. M ar ti nez , 216 S.W .3d 799 , 807 (Tex. 2007 ) ( citation s omitt ed). Thus, Rel iaS tar may hav e been tardy in fili ng thi s int er ple ader act ion , but that does not mean i t i s n o long er

entitl ed to inter ple ad the f unds. This i s n ot t o s ay thatan i nter ple ader defendant i s w it hout any remedy for a tardy deposi t—a s the Tex as Supreme C our t hel d, the av ail abi li ty

of an int er ple ader

acti on in t his co ntext doe s n ot precl ude t he recov er y of penal ti es for ta rd y

pay ments, as sumi ng thatthe int er ple ader defendant can esta bli sh a ri g ht t o s uch penal ti es. Id. Guy has as sert ed s uch cl aims , w hic h w e address i n Par ts II. D. 5- 7. How ev er , w e ov er ru le Guy ’s iss ue as i t rela tes to Rel iaS tar ’s abi li ty to int er ple ad the f und s due to tardin ess. 2. Relia Star’s Manageme nt of the Accounts Guy fu rther argues tha t ReliaSta r w as no t an “inno centstakeh olde r” w holly dis int erest ed i n the su itbec ause of its handl ing of Res seg ieu ’s ac count s. H e appea rs to
a rg u e t h a t in o rd e r to b ri n g a n in t e rp le a d e r ac t io n , t h e in t e rp le a d e r p la in t if f m u s tn o th a ve eng ag ed i n any

co nductpreju dic ial to any othe r par

ty cl aimi ng the funds. W e di sag re e. “I n order to br ing an i nter ple ader under R ule 43, a s tak ehol der i s n ot req uired to be
w holly disinte rested in the suit. ” Bank One, Tex. , N.A. v. T

ayl or , 970 F.2d 16 , 23 (5th Cir

. 1992) (a nal yz ing Tex as law ). The int er ple ader pla int iff must merely sh ow that“ ‘i t i s o r mayR u l e 4 3 p ro v i d e s : 7 P e rs o n s h a v i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n ti ffm a y b e jo i n e d a s d e fe n d a n ts a n d re q u i re d to i nt er pl ead when t hei r cl ai m s a re such t hat t he p l ai nt i ffi s orm ay be exposed t o do ubl e or m ul t i pl e l i ab i l i t y . It i s not gr ound f or obj ect i on t o t he j oi ndert hat t he cl ai m s of t he se v er al cl ai m ant s ort he t i t l es on whi ch t hei r cl ai m s dep end do not have a com m on or i gi n or ar e no t i dent i cal but ar e adv er se t o an d i ndepe ndent of one ano t her , ort hat t he p l ai nt i ffav er s t hat h e i s n o t l i a b l e i n w h o l e o r i n p a rt to a n y o r a l l o f th e c l a i m a n ts

. A d e fe n d a n t e x p o s e d to si m i l ar l i abi l i t y m ay obt ai n su ch i nt er pl eaderby way of cr oss- cl ai m orcoun t er cl ai m . T he pr ov i si ons o ft hi s r ul e sup pl em ent and do not i n any way l i m i t t he j oi nderof par t i es pe r m i t t ed i n an y ot herr ul es. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43. 9 b e exp o se d to do u b le or m u lt ip le lia b ili ty as a r e s u l t o f co n f lic ti n g cla im s ju st if ying a
re a s o nab le dou bt as to w hich claim antis entitled to the f und s.’” Id. (quo ti n g Se ar s Sav. & Pr ofit Sh ar ing Fund v . Stubbs , 734 S.W .2d 7 6, 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1987, no w ri t) ; see T EX . R. C IV . P. 43. 7 A s tak ehol der ’s i nterestin the law sui t is rele v ant t o the dete rmi nati on of w hether to
aw ard the i nter ple ader pl ain ti ff att or ney ’s fees; how ev e r, i t i s “ ir re lev ant for pur poses of
com me ncing an actio n un der Rule 43 .” Bank One, Tex., N.A. , 970 F .2d a t 23. Acc ordin g ly , w hil e an int er ple ader pl ain ti ff ’s cu lpa bil ity in handl ing a cl aim may subj ectthat pla in t i ff t o a c l a i m fo r d a ma g e s s e p a ra t e fro m p a y me n t o f t h e d i s p u t e d fu n d s , s uch as sta tutor y penal ti es for unti mely pay ment of ins urance proceed s, itdoes not mean tha t t he dis puted funds canno t be the p ro per su bje ct of an i nter ple ader

. Ma rt ine z , 216 S.W .3d a t 806, 808 ( “[ W ]heth er

Sta te F ar m shou ld hav e added Ton i as a b en efi c i ar y i s n ott he s am e q uest ion as w hether

i t shoul d hav e paid

her .” ); see a lso Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Sa nder s , 525 S

. W

. 2 d 9 5 6 , 9 5 8
- 5 9 ( Te x . 1 9 7 5 ) ( i n t e r p l e a d e r w a s p ro p e r

w h e n w i fe question ed whethe r ex -w if e , w ho was nam ed b ene f iciary , shou ld be pa id on po licy purchas ed w it h c ommunity funds)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e reje ct Guy ’s arg ument t hat R eli aStar
w as n ote nt i tl ed t o i nt er pl ea d th e di s pu te d fun ds merel y b ec au s e Gu y

n ow a s s er ts c l ai msFor t hi s re ason, w e m ust addr ess t he no- ev i dence m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent bef or e r eachi ng 8 a n y tra d i ti o n a l g ro u n d s fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See C incinnati Li f e I ns. C o. v. C at es, 927 S. W

. 2d 6 23, 626 ( T ex. 199 6) ( hol di ng co ur t of app eal s shou l d con si dergr ounds expr essl y r ul ed o n byt he t r i al cour t but has d i s c re ti o n to a ff i rm o n o th e r g ro u n d s p re s e n te d to , b u t n o t ru l e d o n b y , t h e tri a l c o u rt); see a lso Ford Mot or C o. v. R i dgeway , 135 S

. W

. 3d 598, 600 ( T ex. 200 4) ( “ I ft he p l ai nt i ff s f ai l t o pr oduce m or e t han a sci nt i l l a of ev i dence under[ t he b ur den i m posed by 166 a( i ) ] , t hen t her e i s no ne ed to a na l y z e whet herFor d' s pr oof s ati s fi ed t he R ul e 1 66 a(c ) burd en . ”)

. 10 against ReliaSt ar for its hand ling of his claim to th e proce eds. C. Insufficie ncy

of Relia Star’s Mot ion for Summary Judgment Also by his first issue, Gu y argues that t h e trial court erred in granting ReliaStar’s
mo tion for sum ma ry

jud gm e nt be cause ReliaStar failed to conclusively estab lish all ele ments of its ca uses of acti ons or

defenses . Rel y ing on s tandards for tradi ti onal moti ons for sum ma ry

judgmen t, Guy arg ues that he did nothave a burde n to pro duce ev iden ce in suppo rtof his cl aims bec ause Rel iaS tar di d notco ncl usi v ely

prov e it s cas e as a matter of la w. Guy

mis understa nds the nature of Re li aStar ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment and the respecti v e ev ide nti ar y burdens for a tradi ti onal and no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment. ReliaSta r moved for no-evidence s um ma r y j ud g ment un der Rule 16 6a(i), atta cking multiple ele ments of each o f Guy ’s cl aims

. Rel iaS tar al so mov ed for tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment
on several ground s, includin g its rig ht to interplea der relief , cont end ing that the ev iden ce conclu siv ely negate d elem ent s of Guy’ s claims an d t hatthe evidence conclusively est abl is hed i ts aff ir mati v e defense of li mita ti ons to G uy ’s DTPA caus es of acti on. The tr ial
cour t’ s o rd er g ra nti n g s u mmary

j udg ment, how ev er , ex press ly found thatthere w as no evidence to supp ort any of Guy’ s coun terclaim s. 8 Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 166a( i) prov ide s: Af t e r a d e qu a t e t im e fo r d is c o ve ry, a p a rt y with out presen t in gsum m ary11

jud gm ent evi d e n ce maymov e for summar y j udg ment on the g ro und t hat the re is no ev iden ce of one or mo re essen tial elem ent s of a claim or def ense on w h ich an a dv erse par ty w oul d hav e the burden of proof at tr ial . The moti on mus t s tate the ele ments as to w hic h there is no e v ide nce. The cou rt m ust gr ant t he m oti on unless the re spondent pr oduce s s um m ar

y judgm ent evi dencer aising a ge nui ne i ss ue of m ater ial fac t. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a( i) (e mphasi s added)

. As the ru le it sel f rec og niz es, the par ty mov ing for no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment has no b urden to produc e ev ide nce. Id.;Cit y o f Ke ller
v. W il son , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 25 ( Tex . 200 5) ; see also Pisharod i v. Barrash , N o. 13 -0 5- 744- CV , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 583, at * 5 n.1 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Sept . 20, 2007, no pet. h.) (mem. op. ); Bavo uset v. Hall , No. 13- 03- 025- CV , 200 6 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 363, at *4 n.6 (T ex. Ap p.– Corpus Christi May 18, 20 06, pet. den ied) (mem . op. ). R ath er, the rule spec ific all y

pl aces the burden on the n on- movan t to p ro duce ev ide nce to de feat a noev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. For

d Motor C o. , 1 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 0 0

. Ac c o rd in gl y,
w e reject Guy ’s argume nt that R eliaSt ar’s no-e v iden ce mo tion w as insuf f icient becau se it failed to conclusively

estab lish ReliaStar’s case. Guy had the evident iary

burde n in
re spons e to Rel iaS tar ’s no- ev ide nce arg uments

. W e must now dete rmi ne i f he met t hat burden. D. Guy ’s Duty

to Challe nge A ll Poss ible Grounds for the Trial Court’s Ruling Guy arg ue s th at th e tr i al c ou rt er red i n g ran ti ng s um ma r y j ud g me nt on his
coun terclaim s. At the o utse t, we m ust discu ss w het her Guy satisf ied his bu rden in this appeal to demonst ra te re v ersi ble er ro r. If a tr ial co urt’ s o rd er g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment doe s not spe cif

y the ground s for t he ruling, the app ellantbea rs the bu rden of negating all poss ibl e g ro unds for th e tri al cour t’ s rul ing

. Star

-T ele gr am , Inc. v. D oe , 915 S.W .2d 4 71, 4 7 3 (T e x. 2 0 0 1 ). “I f s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t m a y h a ve b e e n re n d e re d , p ro p e rl y o r i m p ro p e rl y, on a g roun d no t challen ged [on app eal], the jud gmen t mu st be af f irmed .” El

li s v . Pr eci si on12

Engi ne R ebui lde rs, Inc. , 68 S. W .3d 894 , 898 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 02, no pe t.). Here, t he tr ial co urt r ule d that no ev ide nce suppo rt ed anyof Guy ’s clai ms, but t he
order does not spec ify

w hic h el ements of the c lai ms l ack ed s uff ic ien t ev ide nti ar y su ppor t. Beca use ReliaS tar mo v ed for no-evide n c e su mm aryjudgmen t by atta cking multiple elem ent s of

each of Guy’s claims, Guy w as required to demo nstrat e on a ppe al tha t mo re than a sc int il la of ev ide nce suppo rt ed each ele ment attac ked by Rel iaS tar ’s moti on for noev ide nce summar

y ju d gm e n t. McCoy v. Rogers , 2 4 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 2 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, pet. den ied). Guy has raised a gene ral issue arguing tha t the summ aryjudgmen t is imprope r, supp orted bysev eral sub-is sues, as is allow ed u nde r Ma loo ly Br os. , Inc. v. Nap ier

, 461 S.W .2d 1 19, 1 21 ( Tex . 1970). Guy ’s su b- is sues q uest ion w hether su mmary

j udg ment w as proper as to a par

ti cul ar ca use of acti on, b ut t hey do not referenc e a p arti cul ar el ement of tha t cause of

action . Again, this is also prope r unde r Malooly. See id .; McCoy, 240 S.W .2 d at2 72 ( i s s ue w as s uffi c i en t to rai s e prop r i ety o f s um ma r

y j ud g me ntfrau d c l aim
w here i t q uest ion ed th e propr iety of summar

y j udg ment i n oppos ing par ty ’s fav or ). How ev er , a sufficien tl y rais ed i ss ue i s n ot t he end of an appel lan t’ s b urden—a n appel lan t mus t notonl y rais e a p ro per

i ss ue, h e or

sh e mustpresent a rgu m e nts and suppo rt ing auth or ity

for t he c our

t t o rev erse a s ummary j udg ment. Id. I t i s n ot en oug h to say , “ the t ri al cour

t er re d in g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment.” In ci rc umstan ces suc h as thes e,
w h e re a t r i a l c o u rth a s p o t e n t i a l l y g ra n t e d s u mm a r

y j u d g me n to n m u l t i p l e e l e me n t s o f a cl aim, the appel lan t mus t presentarg uments and suppo rt ing auth or ity reg ardin g eac h of the ele ments chal len g ed by the mot ion for s ummary j udg ment. Id. W ith respe ct to all his count er cl aims ag ain st Rel iaS tar , G uy has fail ed to meet his burden t o att a ckall theAl t hough we con st r ue p r o se pl eadi ngs a nd b r i ef s l i ber al l y , we m ust hol d pr o se l i t i gant s t o t he sa m e 9 st andar ds as any ot herl i t i gant

— pr o se appel l an t s m us t com pl y wi t h al l t he a ppl i cabl e r ul es of pr ocedur e. M a n s fie l dS ta te B a n kv . C o h n , 5 7 3 S .W .2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 -8 5 (T e x . 1 9 7 8 ). A n y o th e r ru l e w o u l d g i v e p ro s e l i ti g a n ts a n u n fa i r a d v a n ta g e o v e r th o s e re p re s e n te d b y c o u n s e l

. H a rr is v . S h o w c a s e C h e v ro l e t, 231 S. W

. 3d 5 59, 561 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); S h u ll v . U n i te dP a rc e l

S e rv ., 4 S. W

. 3d 46, 53 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 19 99, pe t

. de ni ed ). 13 poss ibl e g ro unds for th e no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment. 9 1. Common-law Fraud The el ements of

a common- law

f ra ud clai m are: “ 1) a mat er ial represent ati on w as made; ( 2) the re present ati on w as false; ( 3) w h e n t h e represent ati on w as made, t he speak er kn ew i t w as false or

made i t reck les sl y

w it hout any

know led g e of the tr uth a nd as a pos it iv e as ser

ti on; ( 4) the re present ati on w a s made w it h the i ntent ion thati t be act ed upon by the other

par ty ; ( 5) the par

ty act ed in re li ance upon the re present ati on; and ( 6) the party suf fered injury .” Johns on & Hi ggi ns of Tex. , Inc. v. Kenneco Ener gy, Inc ., 962 S. W .2d 507, 524 ( Tex . 199 8)

. In i ts no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment, Rel iaS tar

as ser ted that there w as no ev ide nce to de monstrate a ny of the e lement s of common-l aw fraud. O n appeal , how ev er , Guy does not address Rel iaS tar ’s know led g e or re ck les s s tate of mind
or w hether

R eli aStar

made a re present ati on w it h the i ntentthatGuy rely on t he represe nta tion. Accordingly , Guy has failed to dem onst ra t e t h a tt h e trial court erred in g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment on thi s c lai m. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272

. 2. Neg lig ence The el ements of a negli gen ce c a u se of acti on are: “1 ) a l eg al duty ow ed by

one person to an other , ( 2) a breach of that d uty , and ( 3) damag es prox imat ely resul ti ng from the breach .” Ins

. Net work of Tex

. v. Kloesel , No. 13- 05- 680- CV , 2008 W L 907479, at *6 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Apr . 3, 2008, no pet . h. ). R eli aStar att ack ed eac h el ement of Guy ’s neg li g ence cl aim for l ack of ev ide nce. G uy ’s br ief, ho w ev er , doe s n ot ad dress the14

caus ati on el ement of his neg li g ence cl aim. Acco rd ing ly , G uy has fail ed to demons trate t hat the tr ial cour

t er re d in g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment on th is cl aim. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272. 3. Gro ss N egl ig ence “To e sta bli sh g ro ss neg li g ence, a pla int iff mus t al so prov e by cl ear and conv inc ing
ev ide nce tw o addi ti onal ele ments: ( i) thatfrom t he ac tor ’s st andpoi nt, the a ct or omi ss ion compl ain ed of i nv olv ed an extreme deg re e of r is k, cons ide ri ng the probabi li ty and
m a gn it u d e o f

t h e p o t e n t ia l h a rm t o o t h e rs , a n d (i i) t h a tt h e a c t o r h a d a c t u a l s u bje c t ive
aw areness of the r is k i nv olv ed butnev erthel ess proceed ed i n consc iou s i ndi fference of the rig hts an d safety or w elfare of othe rs.” Alcoa, Inc . v

. Be hr ing er , 2 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 5 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 7 , p e t. f ile d ) (ci ti n g T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 41. 003 ( Ver non 200 5)). ReliaStar mo v ed for no-evidence summ aryju dgme nt on all t he elem ent s of g ross neg li g ence. G u y , h o w e v e r , d i d n o ta rg u e i n h i s b r i e f o r p o i n tt o a n y

e v i d e n c e that Rel iaS tar ’s ac ts inv olv ed an extreme deg re e of r is k or that Rel iaS tar w as aw are of suc h a ri sk but nev erthel ess proceed ed i n c onsc iou s i ndi ffe rence to G uy ’s r ig hts and safety

. Accordin gly , Guy has failed to dem onst rate th at th e trial court erred in g rantin g sum ma ry jud g ment on thi s c lai m. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272

. 4. Breac h of fiduciary duty “Gene rally , for a party to estab lish a claim fo r brea ch of a f iduciary duty, the re mu st
e xis ta f id u c ia ry re la t io n s h ip b e twe e n t h e p la in t if f a n d d e fe n d a n t , t h e d e fe n d a n tm u s th a ve brea ched its fidu ciary

duty to the plaint if

f , and the de fend ant ’s breach m ust result in injury to th e plain tif

f , or b e n e f it t o the defend ant .” Punts v. Wils on , 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 1 (T e x. Ap p .– T e xark a n a 20 0 4 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Burrow v. Arce , 9 9 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 8 -3 9 (T e x.See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 17

. 46 (b), 17

. 50 (a)(1) ( V ern on 20 02 & S up p. 20 07 ). 10 G u y a l s o a l l e g e d i n s u ra n c e c o d e vio l a ti o n s , w h i c h a re a c ti o n a b l e u n d e r th e D T P A p u rs u a n t t o 11 s e c ti o n 1 7 .5 0 (a )( 4 ). T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E § 1 7 .5 0 ( a ) ( 4 )

. T h o s e c la im s w ill b e a d d r e s s e d a lo n g w ith G u y’s i nsur ance code cl ai m s i n Par t I I

. D

. 6- 7. 15 199 9)). ReliaStar mo v ed for sum ma ry judgmen t cont end ing that the re w as no ev iden ce that it ( 1 ) o w e d G u y a fi d u c i a r y d u t y , o r ( 2 ) b re a c h e d a n y s u c h d u t y . O n a p p e al, Guy address es nei ther

of the e lement s c hal len g ed by R eli aStar

. Guy , t herefore, has faile d to demonst ra te t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng summary judg ment on thi s c lai m. Mc Coy, 240 S. W .2d a t 272

. 5. Dece ptiv e Trade Pr actic es Act v iolations Gu y a lle g ed v iol ati ons of the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act

. T EX . B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . §§ 17.41- .63. Guy rais ed ev er

y pos si ble ty pe of cl aim under the DTPA, inc lud ing l aundr

y -l is t v iol ati ons, unc onsc ion abl e c onduc t, and breach of w ar ra nty

. Id. § 10 17.50( a) (1 )- (3 ). W it h re spect to al l thes e c lai ms, how ev er , a pla int iff must demons trate 11 tha t the defend ant ’s actions were a producin g cause of econ om ic or ment al anguish damag es. Id. § 17 .50( a) ; Doe v. Boys Club of Grea ter Dallas, Inc. , 907 S. W .2d 4 72, 4 78 (Tex . 199 5)

. Rel iaS tar

mov ed for

no-ev ide nce summar

y j udg ment al leg ing , among othe r thi ng s, t h a t t h e re w a s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t a n y o f i t s a c t i o n s w e re t h e p ro d u c i n g c a u se of Guy ’s damag es. O n appea l, Guy does not address produci ng ca use. Ag ain , G uy has faile d to demonst ra te t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment on his D TPA cl aims

. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272

. 6. Breac h of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Guy cl aims thatR eli aStar

v iol ated it s d uty

of good faith a nd fair

deal ing

. An i nsurer breache s t he du ty of go od fait h and fair deal ing w hen i t fail s t o att empt i n g ood fait h toA rti c l e 2 1 .5 5 w a s r e p e a le d a n d re c o d i fie d w i th o u t s u b s ta n ti v e c h a n g e . See Act of June 6, 199 1, 12 7 2 n d L e g ., R .S ., c h

. 2 4 2 , § 1 1 .0 3 , 1 9 9 1 T e x . S e s s . L a w S e rv . C h . 2 4 2 , repealed a nd r ecodif i ed b y Act of June 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L e g ., R .S ., c h . 1 2 7 4 , § 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 T e x . G e n . L a w s 3 6 1 1 , 4 1 3 8 ( c u rr e n t v e rs i o n a t T EX
. I NS
. C OD E 16 effect uate a prompt, fair , and eq uit abl e s ettl ement of a c lai m w it h respect t o w hic h the ins urer ’s l iab il ity

has bec ome reason abl y cl ear . Uni ver

se Lif e Ins. Co. v. Gi

les , 950 S.W .2d 48, 5 5 ( Te x . 1 9 9 7 )

. R e l i a S t a r mo v e d fo r n o - e v i d e n c e s u mm a r y j u d g me n t a s s e rti ng that the re w as no ev iden ce tha t ReliaSta r’s l iability to Guy ha s ev er beco me reason ably cl ear. Guy ’s appel lat e br ief does not adeq uatel y address thi s e lementof his cl aim. Guy ’s factual arg ument w it h re spect to hi s c lai m for t he breach of the duty of g ood faith a nd fair

deal ing co nsi sts of the foll ow ing parag ra ph, w it hout any ci tati ons to t he
re cord: T h e e vid e n c e is cl e a r, p re c is e a n d u n c o n t ro ve rt e d t h a tRe li a S t a r k n o win gl y, int enti onal ly , frau dul entl y or neg li g entl y

eng ag ed i n ac ts, ac ti ons, and cond uct th at vi olate d the ir comm on-law duty of g ood faith a nd fair dealings. The e v i d e n c e d e mo n s t ra t e s R e l i a S t a r d e n i e d a n d d e l a y e d w i t h no reaso nab le basis, or failed to dete rmine w het her the re w as a r e a s o nab le basi s w it hin a re asona ble ti me. Then Rel iaS tar kn ow ing ly , i ntent ion all y and fraudul entl y

deposi ted only

a port ion of the p ro ceeds from t he four pol ic ies w it h the co urt. T his argume nt do es no t add ress how or w hen ReliaStar’s liability beca me reason ab l y

c l ear, is co ncl usor

y , and l ack s a ny

ci tati on to the re cord. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( h) ( “The br ief must cont ain a c le a r and c onci se arg ument for the cont enti ons made, w it h appropr iat e ci tati ons to au thor it ies and to the re cord.” ). Acc ordin g ly , Guy has faile d to demonst ra te t hat the t ri al cour

t er re d i n g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment on his cl aim for breach of the duty of g ood fait h and fair

deal ing

. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272

. 7. Prompt Pay ment of Claims Statute Guy al leg ed v iol ati ons o f

for mer arti cl e 21. 55 of the Tex as Ins urance Cod e, t he “prom pt pa y me nt of

c la im s ” statu te. “ T o succe ssf ully main tain a claim un der [forme r] 12A NN
. § 5 4 2 .0 5 5 (V e rn o n P a m p h . 2 0 0 7 )) ; E v a n s to n In s . C o . v . A T O F INA P e tro c h e m i c a ls , I n c ., N o. 03- 0647,

2008 W L 40 0394, at *10 n

. 75 ( T ex. Feb. 15, 200 8)

. For pur poses oft hi s opi ni on, we wi l l r ef er t o f or m er ar t i cl e 21

. 55 , b ec au se t he p ar t i es b r i ef ed i t t hi s wa y h er e an d be l ow . 17 arti cl e 21. 55, s ectio n 6 , a p arty mustes tabl is h three el ements : ( 1) a c lai m under an ins urance pol icy ; ( 2) the ins urer i s l iab le for th e c la im; and ( 3) the ins urer has fail ed to follow one o r m ore provisi ons of [ forme r] a rticle 2 1.5 5 w ith respe ct to the claim.” Coats v. Far m er s Ins. Exch. , 230 S. W .3d 2 15, 2 20 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) (ci ti n g Al ls tate Ins . C o. v

. Bo nner , 51 S.W .3d 289, 291 (Tex . 2001)) . Rel iaS tar mov ed for
no-e v iden ce sum ma ry

judgmen t, arguing that the re w as no ev iden ce tha t it w as no t in compl ian ce w it h the prov is ion s o f for mer arti cl e 21. 55. Guy ’s arg ument w it h respect t o former ar ti cl e 21. 55 c onsi sts o f t h e foll ow ing sta tement: Und er Ar ti cl e 21.55, s ec. 2, 3, an d 4 o f the Tex as Ins urance Cod e, R eli aStar had a du ty to ei th er pa y or de ny Gu y Sp ar k ma n’ s c l ai m w i th in 30 da y s. Cl ear ly , R elia St a r f ail ed to deny or pay Guy Spar kman’ s c lai ms w it hin 30 day s. It w as four y ears before Rel iaS tar f il ed the Inter ple ader

ac ti on. Und er the c lea rl y

es tabl is hed l aw , t he four y ears it took R eli aStar

to file it s In te rp le a d e r ac ti o n w a s t o o lo n g. Guy , how ev er , doe s n ot arg ue or poi nt t o any

ev ide nce that dem onst ra tes thathe made a proper cl aim ag ain st the a nnui ty pol ic ies thatw oul d t rig g er ar ti cl e 21. 55, s uch that Rel iaS tar ’s fail ure to pay w as not i n c ompli ance w it h ar ti cl e 21. 55. A “ cl aim” i s a “ firs t par ty cl aim made by

an ins u re d or a pol icy hol der under an insuran ce po licy

or contract o r by

a ben ef iciary

nam ed in the policy or cont ract tha t mu st be p aid by the insurer directly to the insure d or ben ef iciary .” See Actof Ju ne 6, 1991, 72nd Leg ., R. S., ch. 242, § 11 .03, 1991 Tex

. Sess

. Law Ser v . C h. 24 2, repealed and re codi fied by Ac t of Ju ne 21, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 1274, § 26, 2 003 Tex . G en. L aw s 3 611, 4138 (c ur re nt v ersi on atT EX . I NS
. C OD E A NN . § 542.055 (V er non Pamph. 2007) ). This prov is ionF orm er A rt i c l e 21

. 21 o f t he T ex as I ns ura nc e C od e w as repe al ed an d rec od i fi ed w i t ho ut s ub s t an t i ve 13 c h a n g e . See A c t o f M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L e g ., R .S ., c h

. 2 9 0 , § 1 , 2 0 0 1 T e x . G e n . L a w s 5 4 8 , 5 4 8 -5 1 , repealed and recodif

i ed b y Act of

M ay 22, 2003, 78t h Le g. , R

. S. , ch. 167 4 §§ 2, 26, 200 3 T ex. G en. Laws 3 611, 2 6 5 9 -6 1 (c u rr e n t ve rs i o n s a t T EX
. I NS .C OD E A NN
. §§ 541. 051, 541. 056 ( Ver non Pam ph. 200 7) ) ( her ei naft er “form er art i c l e 2 1.21 " ). T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7.50 (a)(4). 14 18 li mits a prompt pay ment cl aim to a benefic iar y named in the p oli cy . Ma rt ine z , 216 S.W .3d at 80 2. For mer arti cl e 21. 55 doe s n ot prov ide reli ef to a p arty w ho i s n ot na med a benefic iar

y i n th e p o lic y

or co ntractbut is merely deemed the p ro per

benefic iar

y after li ti g ati on. DeLe on v. Llo yd’ s Lon don , Certain Und e rwrite rs, 259 F.3d 34 4, 35 4 (5th Cir. 2001) ( “The leg is lat ure has framed t he clai m-proces si ng deadl ine s o f [former] Ar ti cl e 21. 55 in ter ms of the pr imar

y rela ti onshi p betw een t he i nsurer and the ‘named’ benefic iar y —not the l awful, y et un named bene fici ar y .” ). T hrou ghout h is brief , Guy argues tha t his son, Larry , impro perly designat ed h imse lf as the ben ef iciary

on the policy . How ever, he doe s not exp la in o r po int to an y ev iden ce tha t supp orts his stan ding to ma ke a claim und er forme r article 21. 55— he doe s not asse rt tha t he was a nam ed b ene f iciary or ex plain h ow, giv en th at he w as no t nam ed a s a ben ef iciary , he ha s stand ing to assert a claim unde r fo rmer article 21 .55 against ReliaSta r. Accordin gly , Guy has failed to dem onst rate th at th e trial court erred in granting summ ary jud g ment on his former ar ti cl e 21. 55 c lai m. Mc Coy, 240 S.W .2d a t 272

. 8. Fo rme r A rt icle 21.21 Cl aim Guy alleg ed th at Re liaSta r v iolate d forme r article 21.21 of the T exas Insuran ce Cod e a n d t h at hi s c lai m w as act ion abl e under the DTPA. R eli aStar mov ed for no- 13 14 evidence su mm aryjudgmen t alleging tha t Guy’s art ic le 2 1

. 21 claim w as a m ere recha racterization of

h is good faith and fair d ealing claim, which f ailed for la ck o f ev iden ce19

and precl uded a sta tutor y recov er y . Guy ’s br ief does not address thi s p otent ial g ro und for the t ri al cour

t’ s s ummary

j udg ment. Ac cordin g ly , he has faile d to demonst ra te t hat t he tr ial
cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment on his cl aim under former arti cl e 21.21. Mc Coy, 240 S. W .2d a t 272

. 9. Conclusion As demonst ra ted abov e, Guy has fail ed to demonstrate, as to ea ch caus e of act ion , that the tr ial courterred in g ra nti ng R eli aStar ’s no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. Acc ordin g ly , G uy ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. E. In suf

fi cien t Rec or d By hi s s econd i ss ue, Guy cl aims that the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s c ro ss -mot ion for sum ma ry

judgmen t. In it, Guy argued that R eliaSt ar’s interp lead er pet ition w as legally and factu ally

g roun dless. He also alleged thatthere were no issues of fact regarding his claims againstReliaStar, w hich he asserte d w ere esta blished as a ma tter of law . By his third issue, G u y a rg u e s t hatReliaStar sho uld no t have bee n discha rg ed f rom th e case b e c a u s e itd id n o tin t e rp le a d t h e t o t a l p ro c e e d s f ro m t h e a n n u it ie s in t o t h e co u rt ’s re gi s t ry; therefore, itw as not a di si nterest ed s tak ehol der w ho unc ondi ti ona l l y

d e p o s i t e d t h e d i s p uted f und s in accorda nce wi th T exas Rule o f Civi l Procedu re 43. Guy arg ues th at ReliaSt ar only depos it ed $34,907 .17 int o the c our t’ s reg is tr

y , buthe a rg ues that his mother purchas ed four an nuity policies for $10 ,00 0.0 0 ea ch. Finally , G u y c o m p la in s thatthe trial court
er ro neous ly

deni ed hi s “M oti on to Modi fy, Cor re ct, or Reform Fi nal Ju dg ment,” i n w hic h he
re peated his complai nt that the tri al cour t all ow ed Rel iaS tar

to depos itless than the total proceed s of the annui ty pol ic ies

. Guy ’s moti on di d notatt ach any ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng the a mounts due under the pol ic ies

.T he j udgm ent st at es t hat “ Pl ai nt i ffdep osi t ed t he r equi red f unds ( t ot al i ng $ 34, 907. 17) wi t h t he 15 D i st r i ct C l er k pur suant t o [ t he t r i al cour t ’ s or derdat ed Sept em ber11, 200 1] on O ct ober2, 200 1 as shown by t he ‘ N oti c e o f F i l i ng of A ffi da vi t of Ju l i e D rad y R eg ard i ng C al c ul ati on o f t he A m ou nt D ep os i t ed by R el i as t ar Li fe I ns ura nc e C om pa ny ’ fi l ed N ove m be r 6, 20 01

. ” 20 Rel iaS tar

respon ds that Guy

w aiv ed th ese arg um e n ts b y fail ing to br ing forth a compl ete record of the proceed ing s b elo w . W e ag re e. “A bsenta c omplet e record of the
summar y j udg ment ev ide nce, an a ppel lat e cour t must ass ume that the omitted d ocument s supp ort the judgmen t of the trial court. ” DeS anti s v . Wackenu t C or

p. , 793 S.W .2d 6 70, 6 89 (Tex . 199 0)

. W it h respect t o Guy ’s cross -mot ion for summar y jud g ment, Rel iaS tar

poi nts out that the record does not cont ain R eli aStar ’s respon se to G uy ’s m oti on. Al thoug h Guy di sput es that Rel iaS tar

fil ed a re spons e, the tri al cour t’ s o rd er deny ing Guy ’s moti on ex press ly st ates that itco nsi dered th e “ the R espon se by P la in ti f f R eli aStar

. . . .” W it hout re v iew ing Re li a S t a r’ s re s p o n s e , itis im p o s s ib le t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r t h e t ri a l c o u rte r r e d , a n d we must presume itdi d not

. Id. Beca use o f

the insu f

f icient record , w e are also una ble t o review the trial court’s apparent d eter minat ion thatReli aStar proper ly deposi ted all the annui ty pol ic ies ’ proceed s int o the co urt’ s reg is tr

y . Rel iaS tar ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment referen ce s sev eral pie ces of ev ide nce and not es that the e v ide nce w as filed se paratel y from t he moti on. The cl er k’ s record c ontai ns Rel iaS tar ’s summary judg ment motion, but itdoes not inc lud e any of the ev ide nce filed i n s uppor t of the moti on. For ex ample, R eli aStar apparentl y

su bmit ted the a nnui ty

pol ic ies i n s uppor

t of its moti on for

summary

judg ment, and these poli ci es do not o ther w is e appea r in the record. Ad d it io n a lly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment dat ed M ay 1, 2003 referenc es an af

fidav itf il ed byReli aStar along w it h the depositof the annui ty

funds int o the co urt’ s reg is tr

y thatapparentl y

se t outthe cal cul ati on of the amountdepos it ed. 1521

T his docu me nt a lso doe s not ap pea r in the clerk’s record . W e mu st presum e the se docu me nts su p p o rt t he trial cou rt’s decision to g rant ReliaS tar’s mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment and i ts deni al of G uy ’s Mo ti on to Mo dify , Cor re ct, or R eform the F ina l Judg ment. Guy does not dis pute that Rel iaS tar proper ly fil ed ev ide nce in suppo rtof it s mot ion for s ummary

j udg ment—i n fact, his re spons e to Rel iaS tar ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment and his cross-motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t expressly

pointto and r e ly o n the ev iden ce Rel iaS tar

fil ed. Rat her , G uy

co ntends t h at he di d notbear the burden t o ens ure tha t ReliaSta r’s ev iden ce ap pea red in the clerk’s record. He argues tha t eithe r th e trial court clerk or ReliaStar h a d the bu rden to ensu re thatthe clerk’s record con taine d ReliaSta r’s
summar y j udg ment ev ide nce. The tr ial co urt c ler k i s req uire d b y T e x as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 35.3 (a ) to compi le, cert ify, a nd fil e the cl er k’ s record. T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3( a)

. Rul e 34. 5 l is ts the docu me nts th e trial court clerk mustinclude in the rec o rd , butit does no t specif ically list
mo tions for su mm aryju dgme nt or su ppo rting evidence a s required co nte nts of t he clerk’s
re cord. T EX . R. A PP . P. 34.5; Ma ll ios v. S ta ndar

d Ins . C o. , 2 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 (T e x. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2007, pet. deni ed)

. W hil e ru le 34.5( a) li sts doc uments that m ust b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e re c o rd , r u l e 3 4

. 5 ( b ) p ro v i d e s t h a ta p a rt y m a y re q u e s tt h a ta d d it ion al it ems be i ncl uded i n the record. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 4.5( b)

. As the F our teent h C our

t of App eals recen tly

ex plaine d, a pa rty

app ealing a trial court’s o rd er grant ing summ ary jud g ment has a du ty

to re q uestthatthe re cord incl ude the motion for su mmary

j udg ment and s uppor

ti ng ev ide nce: Thus, alt h oug h the tr ial co urt c ler k i s req uired to i ncl ude atl eastthe docu me nts l isted in 3 4

. 5 , p er Enterprise , if a party w ishes to successf ully app eal a grant of

summ aryj u d gm ent , he m ust includ e mo re than those docu me nts th e cou rt clerk i s required to in c lu d e – h e mu st include all22

‘pe rt ine nt’ doc uments the tr ial co urt c onsi dered i n g ra nti ng the moti on. Mallios, 23 7 S. W .3 d at78 3 (cit in g Enter . Lea si ng C o. v . Ba rr ios , 156 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 49 (Tex . 200 4) ). The du ty i s p lac ed upon the appel lan t t o req uestthatthe per ti nent it em be include d in the record beca use th e app ellant bea rs the bu rden of dem onst rating rev ersible
er ro r. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.1( a) ; DeSa ntis , 793 S.W .2d a t 689

. Thus, alt houg h R eli aStar had the b urden t o pl ead and prov e tha t it w as enti tl ed to int er ple ad th e funds i nto t he c our t’ s reg is tr

y bel ow , G uy

bears t he b u rd e n o n a p peal to show thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng R eli aStar’s m oti on for summar y j udg ment,
acc epti ng the funds for depos it , den y ing hi s c ro ss -mot ion for s umma ry judgment , and deny ing hi s mot ion to modify , c or re ct, or reform the j udg ment. See E nter . Lea si ng C o. , 156 S. W .3d a t 549 ( “A lt houg h Ent er pr is e bears t he burden to prov e its su mmary j udg ment
as a matt er

of law , on appeal Bar ri os bears the burden to br ing forw ard the record of the
sum ma ry

judgmen t e vid ence to provide app ellate courts w ith a ba sis to rev iew his claim of harmful er ro r. ”) ; Dan ner v. Aet na Li fe Ins. C o. , 4 9 6 S

. W

. 2 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 3 (T e x. Ci v. App.–F ort W orth 19 73, n o w ri t)

. Guy had the burde n t o e n s u re thata suf f icient record suppo rt ed hi s a rg uments

. In t he abs ence of a compl ete record, w e mustpresume that the evid en c e om i tt ed from t he rec ord s up po rts t he t r i al c ou rt’ s o rde r d en y i ng G uy ’ s c rossmoti on for summar

y jud g ment and it s jud g ment t hat R eli aStar w as enti tl ed to i nter ple ad th e funds i nto t he c our

t’ s reg is tr y . Enter . Lea si ng C o., 156 S. W .3d a t 549 ; Ma ll ios , 237 S.W .3d at 78 3; Dan ner

, 496 S .W .2d a t 953 (presum ing that trial court acte d w ithin its discretion in app rov ing interp lead er w here record on app eal w as incom plete ). Accordingly , w e overrule Guy ’s se cond, thi rd , and fourt h i ss ues.23 III . C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Guy ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

_________

__ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 15t h day

of Ma y , 200 8.