## CO URT OF APPEA LS SE CO ND D IST RIC TO F T E XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2
- 0 9
- 2 4 8
- CV GLE ND A A ND L ARRY RI CE APPE L L AN TS V
. M ETRO PO LI TA N LI FE APPELLEE I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 67TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I n t hi s l i fe i nsurance di sput e, appel l ant s G l enda and Lar r y R i ce rai se t en poi nt s t o appeal t he t r i al cour t ’ s order grant i ng t he t radi t i onal and no- evi dence su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on of ap pel l ee M et ropol i t an Li fe I ns uranc e Com pan y (M e tLi fe). W e affi rm i n p a rtan d rev e rse an d rem a n d i n p a rt .2 Back ground U n d e rl y i n g fac ts G l end a p urcha se d group u ni versa l l i fe (G U L) i ns uranc e f or h ersel f

an d a l i fe i n su ran c e ri d e r fo r h e r hu sb a n d La rr y , a s h e r de p e n d a n t, fro m M e tLi fe t hroug h a pl an offered by her em pl oyer , A von P rodu ct s, I nc. Lar r y’ s r i der prov i de d $50, 000 i n c ov e ra ge . Gl e nd a re t i re d f rom Avo n i n M a rc h 2003. M et Li fe s enta l et t er

da t ed M ay 10, 2 003 t hatw as addres se d t o Gl end a and descr i bed her

i nsurance opti o n s upo n ret i rem ent . The l et t er cont ai ned i nf or m ati on i n i t s uppe r r i ghtco r ner , unde r

t he t i t l e o f

“ C ove rage I nfor m at i on a s o f 5 /1 0 /2 0 0 3 ,“ a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f G l e n d a ’s o w n c o v e ra g e a n d o f L a rry ’s c o v e rag e (de sc ri b e d sp e c i fi c a l l y i n th e l e tter a t $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ). I t t h e n sta ted i n p a rt ,

Y ou’ ve w or ked for m any years t o ensure a sol i d fi n anci al fu tu re . N o w i t’ s ti m e to re l a x an d l e t us ke e p a p rom i se tha t w e m ade t o you w hen yo u enrol l ed for G roup U ni versal Li fe i nsurance. Y ou t r ust ed M et Li fe t o provi de a f l exi bl e l i fe i nsurance benefi tt hat w o u l d m e e t a life ti m e o f p ro te c ti o n n e e d s . N o w , a t th i s v e ry i m port ants t age of

you r l i fe, w e’ d l i ke t o c ont i nue t o of fer you a m enu of

co verage opt i ons . M os tl i ke l y, you r co verage ne eds ha ve c h a n g e d s i n c e y o u fi rs t e n ro l le d fo r G U L . T h e e n c l o s e d b ro c h u re and opt i ons s hee tex pl ai ns t he opt i ons now av ai l abl e t o yo u. Pl ea se revi ew t hes e o pt i ons careful l y. Pl ea se not e t hatyou r cur rentco verage w i l l rem ai n e f fec t i ve w hi l e y ou assess your choi ces . . . . To choo se an opti on, si m pl y com pl et e t he at t ached el ec t i on for m , s i gn w here i ndi ca t ed, an d ret ur n t o M et Li fe i n t he e n v e l o p e p ro v i d e d
. . . .D ur i ng di scovery, G l enda adm i t t ed t hat she recei ved t he cer t i f i cat e; her 1 a d m i ss i o n d o e s n o t i n d i c a te w h e n sh e rec e i v e d i t. 3 W e lo o k fo r

w a rd t o c o n t in u in g t o s e r v e y o u r n e e d s a n d h e lp you keep your

prom i ses. A gai n, congrat ul at i ons and ou r best w i sh e s d u ri n g y o u r re ti rem e n t! T h e e l e c t i o n fo r m e x p l a i n e d Gl e n d a ’ s c o v e ra g e o p t i o n s : ( 1 ) “ CON T I NUE M Y G U L CO V ERA G E, ” ( 2) “E LECT A PAI D
- U P BEN EFI T, ” ( 3) “E LECT A M ETLI FE AN NU I TY, ” o r

( 4) “ SURRENDER YO UR CO VE R A G E & RECEI VE YO UR CA SH FUN D BA LAN C E. ” G l end a i ni t i al l y sen tM et Li fe a fax i n w hi ch sh e c hos e t he four t h opti on, butl at er on th e sam e day t hatshe sentt he f i rstfax, aft er speaki ng w i t h a M et Li fe em pl oyee nam ed S um m er , G l enda sentanot her fax st at i ng t hats he w an t ed t o c ont i nue he r co verage unde r

t he f i rstopt i on. The s ec ond f

ax t hatG l end a s ents t at ed i n pa rt , “ I j us tdi sc us se d m y de ci si on t o ret ai n m y coverage w i t h S um m er , your cust om er

ser vi ce associ at e. She h as a s s u re d m e m y c o v e ra g e w i l l n e i th e r l a p s e n o r b e c a n c e l l e d .” Th e cert i f i cat e of

i nsurance for

G l enda’ s group l i fe i nsurance pl an st at es th a t te rm l i fe i n s u ra n c e fo r d e p e n d a n ts e n d s o n th e d a te o f th e e m p l o y e e ’s reti rem e n t. H o w e v e r, for a b o u t tw o an d a h a l f y e a rs a fter G l e n d a ’s reti rem e n t,

1 M e tLi fe c o n ti n u e d to b i l l an d ac c e p t qu a rt e rl y p rem i u m p a y m e n ts fo r bo th G l end a’ s cov erage an d L ar r y’ s r i de r

co verage . Gl end a rec ei ved a “GroupThe Group Uni versa l Li fe Rep orts how s t he val ues of t he cov erage an d 2 det ai l s f i nanci al act i vi t y rel at ed t o t he coverage. M e tL i fe l a te r c o rre c te d t h e e ffe c ti v e d a te o f th e c a n c e l l a ti o n o f L a rry ’s 3 c o v e ra g e re tro a c t i v e l y to M a rc h 2 0 0 3 (th e m o n th o f G l e n d a ’s re ti re m e n t). A c c o rding to M e tLi fe, i t disc o v e red i ts b i l l i n g m i sta k e i n a re c o rd s a u d i t. M et Li fe’ s repres ent at i ve M ar k M one y s w ore, “ [ T] h e d e p e n d e n ts p o u s e c o v e rage m us tbe m anu al l y c han ged i n t he sy st em . W hen M rs. Ri ce reti red sh e conti nued her

l i fe i nsurance coverage and w as bi l l ed on a qu art er l y basi s. M i st ak enl y[ , ] M et Li fe’ s sy st em w as not m anu al l y c han ged t o e nd t he dep end ent s p o u s e c o v e ra g e b i l l i n g .” 4 U ni versal Li fe Rep or t ” for t he per i od of January to D ecem ber 20 05 t hat m ent i oned Lar r

y’ s $5 0, 00 0 i n coverage. 2 In J u ly 2 0 0 5 , M e tL i fe d i s c o v e re d th a t i t h a d b i l l e d th e R i c e s fo r L a rry ’s c ov e ra ge s i nc e Gl e nd a ’ s re t i re m e nti n 2003, s o i n t he l a t t e r p a rto f

2005 , M et Li fe st opp ed bi l l i ng t he R i ces for t hatco v e rag e w i t hou tnot i ce t o G l enda. W hen G l enda recei ved t he bi l l for t he f i nal quar t er

of 20 05 , she saw for

t he f i rst t i m e t hat M et Li fe had s t opp ed bi l l i ng for Lar r y’ s coverage. W hen sh e cal l ed M e tLi fe i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , M e tLi fe’s e m p l o y e e , A n g e l i c a R i d g e , e x p l a i n e d to her t hatM et Li fe d i d notco ve r t er m l i fe i ns uranc e f or de pen dan t s unde r

t he A von g roup pol i cy upo n an em pl oyee’ s ret i rem entand t hatLar r y’ s coverage had bee n c anc el ed “e f

fec t i ve J ul y 2005. ” Gl end a t ol d Angel i ca t hatno o ne 3 noti f i ed her

of Lar r y’ s coverage cancel l at i on. D espi t e t hi s, accordi ng t o G l enda, A nge l i ca t ol d he r

t hatt he prem i um s t hatG l end a had pai d for La r r y’ s cov erageS ee Tex. Bus
. & Com
. Code Ann. §§ 17. 41– . 63 ( V er non 2002 & Supp. 4 2 0 0 9 ). S ee T e x . I n s . C o d e A n n . § § 5 4 1 .0 0 1
– .4 5 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 9 ).

5 5 w o u l d n o t b e re fu n d e d a n d th a t L a rry ’s c o v e ra g e w a s i n p l a c e th ro u g h J u ly 2 0 0 5 . P ro c e d u ra l h i s to ry T h e R i c e s f i l e d clai m s a g a i n st M e tLi fe fo r ba d fai th , b rea c h o f co n tra c t, vi ol at i on of t he T exas D ecept i ve Trade Pract i ces- C o n su m er Prot ect i on A ct ( D TPA ) , vi ol at i on of ch apt er

541 of

t he i ns uranc e c ode , m one y ha d a nd 4 5 re c e i v e d (b a s e d o n th e n o n re t u r n o f t h e R i c e s ’ p re m i u m p a y m e n ts fo r L a rry ’s cov erage ) , prom i ss or y es t oppe l , brea ch of f i duc i ar y duty, and f rau d by non di scl osure. M e tLi fe f i l ed, i n one do cum ent , a t radi t i onal and no- evi dence m ot i on for

sum m ar

y j udg m enton al l of t he R i ces’ cl ai m s. The cou rtgrant ed t he m ot i on i n i t s ent i rety w i th o u t s peci f yi ng reasons for

doi ng so. The R i ces f ile d t h e ir

n o t ic e o f

t h is a p p e a l. The Tr i al Cour t ’ s O rder G rant i ng M et Li fe’ s Sum m ar y Ju dgm entM ot i on I n t hei r f i rstni ne poi nt s, t he Ri ce s argu e t ha tthe t r i al co urter red by grant i ng M et Li fe’ s t radi t i ona l an d no- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm entm ot i on a g a i n s t th e i r v a ri o u s c l a i m s .6

S t andards of

revi ew Tradi t i ona l s um m ar

y j udgm entm ot i ons A def end ant w ho con cl us i vel y neg at es atl ea stone es se nt i al el em entof a c a u s e o f

a c t io n is e n t it le d t o s u m m a r y ju d g m e n to n t h a tc la im
. I H S C e d a rs Trea t m entCt r . of

D eSot o, Tex. , I nc. v. M as on , 143 S
. W
. 3 d 7 9 4, 798 (Tex. 200 4)
. O nce t he def end antproduc es s uf f i ci entev i den ce t o e st abl i sh t he r i ght to su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, the b u rde n s h i fts to th e p l a i n ti ff to c o m e forw a rd w i th c o m p e te n t c o n tro v e rti n g e v id e n c e th a t ra i s e s a fa c t i s s u e . V an v. Pen a , 990 S .W .2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ). W e re v i e w a s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t d e n o v o . M ann Frank fortSt ei n & Li pp A dvi so rs, I nc. v. Fi el di ng , 289 S. W
. 3d 844 , 848 (Tex. 200 9)
. W e con si der t he evi den ce pres ent ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavo rabl e t o t he nonm ova nt , credi t i ng evi den ce favo rabl e t o t he nonm ova nti f rea so nab l e fac t f i nde rs cou l d a nd d i s re g a rd i n g e v i d e n c e c o n tra ry to th e n o n m o v a n t u n l e s s re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e rs c o u l d n o t. I d. W e ind u l g e e v e ry rea so n a b l e i n fere n c e an d res o l v e an y d o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. 20 80 1, I nc. v. Par ker , 2 49 S. W
. 3d 392, 399 (Tex. 2 0 0 8 ). W e m u s tc o n s id e r w h e t h e r

re a s o n a b le a n d fa ir -m in d e d fa c t f in d e rs c o u ld d iffe r i n th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s i n l i g h t o f a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e p re s e n te d
. S e e W a lM artS t ores, I nc. v . Sp at es , 1 8 6 S .W .3 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ); C i t y of K el l er v. W i l so n , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 2
– 2 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ).7

N o- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm entm ot i ons A ft er an ad equ at e t i m e f or di sc ove r

y, t he part y w i t houtt he burden of proof m ay, w i t houtpres ent i ng evi de nc e, m ove for s um m ar

y j udgm enton t he ground t hatt here i s no e vi den ce t o su pp ortan es se nt i al el em entof t he non m ovant’ s cl ai m or defense. Tex. R. C i v. P. 16 6a (i )
. The m ot i on m ust s p e c i fi c a l l y s ta te th e e l e m e n ts fo r w h ic h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . I d. ; T i m p te I ndu s. , I nc. v. G i sh , 28 6 S
. W
. 3d 30 6, 31 0 (Tex
. 20 09 )
. Th e t r i al cour tm ust grantt he m ot i on un l ess t he non m ovant produ ces sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence th a t ra i s e s a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ); H am i l t on v . W i l so n , 2 4 9 S .W .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 2 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). Li ke our revi ew of

t ra d i t i o n al s um m ar

y j udgm entm ot i ons , w hen revi ew i ng a n o- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm en t , w e e xam i ne t he ent i re rec ord i n t he l i ght m o s tfa v o ra b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t , i n d u l g i n g e v e r y re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e an d re s o l v i n g a n y d o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . S udan v. Su dan , 199 S. W
. 3d 291, 29 2 (Tex
. 20 06 )
. A nd al so l i ke t radi t i onal m ot i ons, w e revi ew a no- evi dence sum m ar y j udg m entfor

evi dence t hatw oul d enabl e reas onab l e and fai r - m i nded fa c tfin d e rs t o d i ffe r i n th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s . H am i l t on , 249 S
. W
. 3d at426 (ci t i ng C i ty o f Kel l er , 168 S
. W
. 3d at822)
. W e c redi tev i den ce favo rabl e t o t he n o n m o v a n t i f re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e rs c o u l d , a n d w e d i s re g a rd e v i d e n c e c o n tra ry to th e n o n m o v a n t u n l e s s re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e rs c o u l d n o t. Ti m pt e I ndu s. , I nc. ,8

286 S. W
. 3d at310 (quot i ng M ack Trucks, I nc. v. T a m ez , 206 S. W
. 3d 572, 582 ( Tex. 2006 ) )
. I f

t he nonm ova ntbr i ngs for w ard m ore t han a sc i nt i l l a o f proba t i ve evi den ce t hatrai se s a ge nui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fac t , t hen a noe v i d e n c e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t i s n o t p ro p e r. S m it h v . O ’D o n n e ll , 288 S. W
. 3d 4 1 7 , 4 2 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 9 ). Breach of

cont ract I n t hei r t hi rd poi nt , t he Ri ce s con t end t hat t he t r i al cou rt er red by g rant i ng sum m ar y j udg m entagai nstth e i r breach of

cont ractcl ai m . I nsurance pol i ci es a re c o n tra c ts . Ba r n e t tv . Ae t n a L i fe I n s . Co. , 7 2 3 S
. W
. 2d 663, 665 (Tex. 1 9 8 7 ); s e e M a r k e l I ns . Co. v . M uz yka , 293 S
. W
. 3d 380, 385– 86 (Tex. A pp. — For tW or t h 2 00 9, no pet . ) (descr i bi ng var i ous pr i nci p l e s o f cont ract i nterp ret at i on t hatap pl y t o i ns uranc e p ol i ci es )
. “ The e l em ent s of a brea ch of con t rac tcl ai m are ( 1) t he exi st enc e o f a va l i d con t rac t , ( 2) pe rfor m anc e o r t end ered perfor m anc e b y t he pl ai nti ff , ( 3) brea ch of t he con t rac tby t he defendan t , and ( 4) resul t i ng dam ages t o t he pl a i nt i f f
. ” Fi el dt ech A vi oni cs & I ns t r um ent s, I nc. v. Com pone ntCont rol
. C om , I nc. , 2 62 S. W
. 3d 813, 825 (Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 8, no pet. ) (ci t i ng H ar r i s v. A m . Prot . I ns . Co. , 158 S .W .3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 2
– 2 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.)). M et Li fe has notexpressl y argued t hatt he cer t i f i cat e of i n su ran c e does not qual i f

y as a val i d contractor t hatt he R i ces di d n o t p e rfo rm under t hatW ai ve r i s t he i nt ent i ona l rel i nqui sh m entof a r i ghtac t ual l y k now n or 6 i nt ent i ona l co nduc ti nco ns i st entw i t h c l ai m i ng t hatr i ght ; est oppe l preve nt s one part y f rom m i sl ea di ng ano t her t o t he ot her’ s det r i m ent or t o t he m i sl ea di ng p a rty ’s o w n b e n e fi t. Id
. a t778. 9 contract . Rat her , M et Li fe m oved for sum m ar

y j udg m enton t he groun d s t hat ( 1) t here w as no e vi den ce t hati tbrea che d t he con t rac tbe ca us e i t s t er m i nat i on of La r ry’s c ov erage upon G l end a’ s ret i rem entw as m and at ed by t he t er m s of t he cer t i f i cat e of

i nsurance and ( 2) t he R i ces have notsuf fered dam ages. The Ri ce s con t end t hatM et Li fe w ai ved i t s t er m i nat i on of La r r y’ s cov erage u n d e r t h e c e rt if ic a t e o f in s u ra n c e w h e n it a c c e p t e d p re m iu m s fo r tw o a n d a h a lf years and represent ed i n w r i t i ng aft er G l enda’ s ret i rem entt hatLar r y had cov erage . Fu rt her m ore, t hey co nt end t ha tt he “c or res ponde nce an d t he as so ci at ed oral an d w r i t t en exc han ges be tw ee n M et Li fe a nd [ G l end a] i n M ay of 200 3 i s . . . an ex t ens i on of t he or i gi nal pol i cy or a new co nt rac ti m pl yi ng t he sa m e t er m s. ” I n M et Li fe’ s m ot i on for s um m ar

y j udgm ent , i ts t at ed, “M i st ak enl y, an d t o t he ben ef i tof M r . Ri ce , M et Li fe k eptco verage i n pl ac e a nd c o n t in u e d t o c h a rg e g ro u p p re m iu m s fo r t h e d e p e n d e n tc o v e ra g e u n t il J u ly 20 05 w hen t he m i st ake w as di scovered. ” M et Li fe rel i es on U l i co C as ual t y Com pan y v. A l l i ed Pi l ot s A ss oci at i on to con t end t hatco verage unde r t he pol i cy ca nnotbe ex pan ded by t he w ai ver or es t oppe l doc t r i nes . 262 S.W
. 3 d 7 73, 775– 87 (Tex. 2008 )
. I n U l i co , t he 610

T e x a s S u p rem e C o u rtco n side red w h e th e r an i n su rer’ s c l a i m s-m a d e l i a b i l i ty i ns uranc e p ol i cy ( requ i r i ng no t i f i ca t i on du r i ng t he pol i cy per i od t o t he i ns urer of a c l a i m a g a in s tt h e i n s u re d ) c o u l d b e e x te n d e d b y th o s e d o c tri n e s to c o v e r a su i tag ai ns tt he i ns ured by a t hi rd pa rt y t hatw as f i l ed w i t hi n t he pol i cy per i od b u t w a s n o t re p o rte d to th e i n s u re r u n ti l a fte r th e p o l i c y e x p i re d
. I d. at 7 7 5
– 7 7 . In t h a tc a s e , a lt h o u g h t h e in s u re d h a d u n t im e ly re p o rt e d t h e c la im aga i n s ti t , t h e i n s u re r re v i e w e d t h e c l a i m a n d s e n tt h e i n s u re d a l e t t e r s t a t i ng th a t th e i n s u re d ’s d e fe n s e c o s ts w o u l d b e p a i d
. I d. at775– 76. Thus , t he i ns ured pursu ed i t s def ens e, butw hen t he i ns ured’ s cou ns el s ubm i t t ed a $63 5, 000 bi l l for cos t s i ncu r red w hi l e def end i ng t he i ns ured, t he i ns urer s ought a d ec l arat or

y j udgm entt o de t erm i ne t hati tdi d notow e t he cos t s unde r t he p o l i c y . I d. a t 7 7 6 . A tt he t r i a l o f

t he i ns ure r ’ s d e c l a ra t or y j ud gm e ntc a s e , t he j ur y de c i ded t hatt he i ns urer

ha d a gree d t o pa y t he i ns ured’ s def ens e c os t s se parat el y from t he i nsurer ’ s or i gi nal pol i cy w i t h t he i nsured, had w ai ved i t s r i ght t o assertt hat t he pol i cy di d not cov er t he cos t s, and w as es t oppe d f rom as se rt i ng t ha tt he p o l i c y d id n o tc o v e r th e c o s ts . I d. The t r i al co urts etas i de t he j ur y’ s f i ndi ng t hat t he i nsurer agreed t o pay t he cost s apar t f rom t he pol i cy b u t en tered j u d g m e n t a s to th e j u ry ’s w a i v e r a n d e s to p p e l fi n d i n g s . I d. W e a f f i r m ed t he tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. I d. a t 7 7 6
– 7 7 .T h e R i c e s h a v e as se rt e d tha t M e tLi fe’s fa i l u re to ex e rci se i ts o p ti o n to 7 t e r m i n a t e t h e p o l i c y u p o n Gl e n d a ’ s re t i re m e n t , i t s w r i t t e n a f f i r m a t i on of cov erage tw o m ont hs aft er G l end a’ s ret i rem ent , an d i t s ac ce pt anc e o f prem i um s for

ove r tw o ye ars am ount ed t o a w ai ver o f the o pti on. Butt he c e rt i fi c a te o f i n su ran c e d o e s n o t state tha t M e tLi fe h a s a n o p ti o n to te rm i n a te upo n G l enda’ s ret i rem ent ; i t st at es t hat “D epend ent Term I nsurance w ill e n d ” u p o n re ti re m e n t. [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .] 11 I n re ve rs i ng o ur

d e c i s i on , t he s up re m e c ou rtn ot e d t ha tw he n a p ol i cy covers r i sks f

or a cert ai n t i m e per i od (such as t he cer t i f i cat e of i nsurance does h e re b y e n d i n g L a rry ’s te rm i n s u ra n c e o n th e d a te o f th e G l e n d a ’s re ti re m e n t), “th e ti m e o f t h e ev e n t al l e g e d l y tr i g g e ri n g co v e ra g e i s a p rec o n d i ti o n to cov erage an d i s notco ns i dered a d efens i ve m at t er t o be pl ea ded an d prove d by t he i ns urer . The i ns urer ha s nei t her

a ‘ r i ght ’ nor

a burden t o a ss ertnonc ove rage o f a ri s k o r l o s s . . . .” I d. at77 8 (ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. Then , t he cour texpl ai ned 7 t hati tha d addressed t he quest i on of w het her t he contract ual coverage of an i ns ura nc e p ol i c y c a n be e xp a nd e d by w a i ve r o r e s t op pe l o ver se ven t y ye ars ago i n W as hi ngt on N ati ona l I ns uranc e Co. v. C raddo ck , 13 0 T e x . 25 1, 10 9 S
. W
. 2d 16 5 (Tex
. 19 37 )
. I n t hat c a se , C rad d o c k , th e in su red , w a s e n ti tl e d to w e e k l y i n d e m n i ty pay m ent s i f

he be ca m e i nca pac i t at ed f rom an ac ci den t al i nj ur y. The po l i cy sp ec i f i ca l l y e xce pt ed guns hotw ound i nj ur i es from c o v e ra g e . C ra d d o c k a c c id e n t a lly s h o th im s e lf w it h a p is t o l, subm i t t ed a cl ai m , and t he i nsurer st art ed payi ng w eekl y benefi t s. A ft er m aki ng el even paym ent s, t he i nsurer st opp ed payi ng becau se t he i nj ur

y w as no tcovered. Cradd ock s ued
. I n hi s pl ea di ngs C raddo ck acknow l edged t hatt he pol i cy speci f i cal l y except ed i nj ur i es from gunsho tw oun ds fro m co verage. C raddo ck cl ai m ed t hathe t ol d t he com pan y’ s age ntan d f i l ed hi s cl ai m s how i ng he12

w as i nj ured by a gun shot , yett h e ins urer pai d w eekl y benefi t s. The i ss ue and t hi s C ourt ’ s ans w er w ere s t rai ght for

w ard: [B ]u th e a lle g e d fu rt h e r t h a tt h e c o m p a n y h a v in g p a id h i m 1 1 w e e k s ’ i n d e m n i ty fo r a n a c c i d e n ta l i nj u ry p ro d u c e d b y a g u n s h o tw o u n d , h a d w a iv e d t h is con di t i on of

t he pol i cy, an d w as t herefore bound and o b lig a t e d t o p a y h im t h e re m a in in g 9 3 w e e k ly i n sta l l m e n ts, a n d w a s es to p p e d fro m d e n y in g i ts l i abi l i t y by vi rt ue of

such w ai ver . H e al l eged al so t hat he ha d go ne t o c ons i derabl e e xpe ns e i n s ec ur i ng a nd prepa r i ng c l ai m s and proof of i nj ur y.

. . . The q ues t i on pres ent ed i s notw het her t he a c t of th e i n su ran c e co m p a n y in m a k i n g p a y m e n ts w oul d co nst i t ut e a w ai ver of i t s r i ghtt o forfei tt he p o l i c y o n ac c o u n t of so m e b rea c h b y the i n su red o f i ts t er m s, buti s w het her a con t rac t ual l i abi l i t y m ay be c re a t e d b y a w a i v e r. By i t s pol i cy t he i nsurance com pany d i d not assum e any l i abi l i t y for t he r i sk decl ared upo n and no consi derat i on m oved to i taft er t he ac ci dentfor

t he as su m pt i on of s uch l i abi l i t y. The i ns ured se ek s t o c rea t e t hatl i abi l i t y by i nvok i ng t he doc t r i ne of

w ai ver . The doct r i ne ca nnotbe m ade t o ser ve t hatpur pose. I d. a t 7 7 8
– 7 9 (so m e c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ). Th us, co n fo rm i ng t o i t s C raddo ck dec i si on, t he su prem e c ourti n U l i co hel d t hatw ai ver

an d e st oppe l ca nnotbe us ed t o rew r i t e an i ns uranc e p ol i cy and e x p a n d c o v e ra g e . I d. a t 7 8 1 , 7 8 7 ; se e a l so M et ro Al l i ed I ns . A gen cy, I nc. v. L in , 304 S. W
. 3d 830, 836 (Te x. 2009) (s t a t i ng t ha t t he “ l a w i s c l e ar t hat m i srepres ent at i ons ab outi ns uranc e c ov era ge ca nnot , unde r t he doc t r i ne of e s to p p e l , e x p a n d c o v e ra g e p ro v i d e d in a n i n s u ra n c e p o l i c y ” ); Tex
. Far m ers I ns.T h e R i c e s d i sc u ss the w a i v e r a n d e sto p p e l d o c tr i n e s i n th e i r fi rst po i n t, 8 i n w hi ch t hey contend thatthe t r i al co ur terred by no tappl yi ng t hose doctr i nes t o t hi s ca se . To t he ext entt hatt he Ri ce s rel y on t hei r di sc us si on of

w ai ver an d est opp el i n t hei r

f i rstpoi ntt o assertt hatt hei r cl ai m s dep enden ton t he par t i es’ contractsho ul d succeed because Lar r y’ s or i gi nal coverage w as ext ended by an al t erat i on of

t he ce rt i f i ca t e o f

i ns uranc e, w e o ver r ul e t he Ri ces’ f i rstpoi ntfor th e re a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e . 13 C o . v . M c G u i re , 74 4 S
. W
. 2d 60 1, 60 3 (Tex
. 19 88 ) (op. on reh’ g) (st at i ng t hat w ai ver and est opp el “have consi st ent l y been deni ed operat i ve force t o chang e, re-w ri te a n d en l a rge the ri sk s c o v e re d b y a p o l i c y .”). A n d i n h a rm o n y w i th U l i co , Texa s cou rt s had previ ous l y he l d t hatan i ns urer ’ s ac ce pt anc e o f prem i um s does notcreat e coverage t hroug h t he w ai ver or est opp el doct r i nes. S e e , e .g ., G re a tA m . R e s e r v e In s . C o . v . M it c h e ll , 335 S
. W
. 2d 707, 708 (Tex. C i v. A pp. — S an A nt oni o 1 96 0, w ri t ref’ d) ( hol di ng t hatw hen a l i fe i nsurance pol i cy sa i d t hatco verage t er m i nat ed w hen an e m pl oye e rea che d t he age of si xt y- f i ve, t he i nsurer ’ s accept ance of prem i um s aft er t he i nsured reached t hat a g e d i d n o t c re a te c o v e ra g e b y w a i v e r o r e s to p p e l ). A c c o rding l y , u n d e r th e b i n d i n g p rec e d e n t of U l i co , w e ca n n o t ag ree w i th t he R i ces t hatM et Li fe’ s acceptance of prem i um s or i t s ot her

act i ons creat e a fa c tq u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n - u p o n - re t i re m e n tc l a u s e o f t he cert i f i cat e of

i nsuranc e — t he or i gi nal cont ractbetw een t he par t i es— w as n e g a t e d o r

re w r it t e n b e c a u s e o f w a iv e r o r e s t o p p e l. 814

The Ri ce s al so argue t hatM et Li fe s houl d be l i abl e f or brea ch of

t he or i gi nal i ns uranc e c ont rac tbe ca us e i tdi d noti ss ue a perso nal pol i cy t o L ar r y or gi ve Lar r

y an appl i cat i on for

such a pol i cy upo n t he t er m i na ti on of hi s r i der c o v e rag e i n M a rch 2 0 0 3
. T h e p o rt i o n o f th e c e rt i fi c a te o f i n su ran c e re l a ti n g to ri d e rs s ta te s th a t M e tL i fe w o u l d “ i s s u e a p e rs o n a l p o l i c y o f l i fe i n s u ra n c e . . . t o a D epend enti f

thatD epend entap pl i e[ d] for i ti n w r i t i ng dur i ng” t he “31 day per i od aft er

t he dat e t he D epend entTer m I nsurance on t hatD epend entends” because of

t he em pl oyee’ s reti rem ent . A l t hou gh t he cer t i f i cat e of i nsurance doe s notex pres sl y s t at e t hatM et Li fe m us ti ss ue a perso nal pol i cy apa rtfrom a t i m el y a ppl i ca t i on or ev en t hatM et Li fe w as requ i red t o i nfor m t he Ri ce s abo ut t hei r ab i l i t y t o appl y for

a personal pol i cy, t he R i ces ess ent i al l y contend t hat M e tLi fe’s g i v i n g the m a fa i r op p o rt u n i ty to co n v e rtLa rr y ’s ri d e r co v e rag e i n to i n d i v i d u a l c o v e rag e is a n im p l i e d term o f t h e ce rt i fi c a te. I n a re l a ted arg u m e n t, t hey al so assertt hatM et Li fe w as requi red t o provi d e n o ti ce t hatLar r y’ s r i der c o v e ra g e h a d b e e n c a n c e l e d b e c a u s e n o ti c e o f c a n c e l l a ti o n w a s a n i m p l i e d te rm of t he cer t i f i cat e. W e m us tus ual l y l ook o nl y t o t he w r i t t en con t rac tt o de t er m i ne t he obl i gat i on s of part i es, and i ti s typi cal l y not proper for us t o i m pl y t er m s t hat c o n tra d i c t a c o n tra c t’s e x p re s s l a n g u a g e . See Uni versa l H ea l t h Ser vs . , I nc. v. R e n a i s s a n c e W o me n ’ s Gro u p , P
. A. , 1 2 1 S .W .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ).15

In o th e r

w o rd s , c o u rts “ c a n n o t m a k e c o n tra c ts fo r [th e ] p a rti e s .” H EC I Expl orat i on C o. v. N eel , 9 82 S. W
. 2d 881 , 8 88 (Tex. 1998 ) (quot i ng G u lf Prod. Co. v. Ki sh i , 12 9 T ex. 48 7, 49 3, 10 3 S
. W
. 2d 96 5, 96 8 ( 19 37 ) )
. Thu s, A covenan tw i l l n otb e i m pl i ed unl ess i tappears f rom t he express term s o f t h e co n tra c t t hat“ i tw as s o c l ea r l y w i t hi n t he c o n tem p l a ti o n o f t h e p a rt i e s th a t t h e y d e e m e d i t un n e c e ss a ry to express i t , ” and t herefore t hey om i t t ed t o do s o, or “i t m ustappear th a t i t i s ne c e ss a ry t o i n fer su c h a c o v e n a n t i n o rde r t o effe c tu a te t h e fu ll p u r p o s e o f

t h e c o n t ra c ta s a w h o le as ga t hered f rom t he w r i t t en i ns t r um ent .” N eel , 982 S
. W
. 2d at888 (em pha si s add ed) (quot i ng D anc i ger O i l & Ref
. Co. v. P o w e ll , 1 3 7 T e x . 4 8 4 , 4 9 0 , 1 5 4 S .W .2 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 5 (1 9 4 1 )); se e F i el di ng , 289 S
. W
. 3d at85 0. A n i m pl i ed coven ant“m ustre st ent i rel y on t he presum ed i nt ent i on of t he par t i es as gat hered f rom t he t er m s as ac t ual l y e xpres se d i n t he w ri tten i n stru m e n t i tse l f. ” U n i versal H eal t h S er vs. , I nc. , 121 S. W
. 3d a t748 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). U nde r t hes e s t and ards , w e ca nnotco ncl ude t hatM et Li fe’ s gi vi ng t he R i ces not i ce of

t hei r oppo rt uni t y t o gai n i ndi v i d u a l coverage for Lar r y aft er G l e n d a ’s re ti re m e n t o r s e n d i n g th e m o fficia l n o ti c e o f th e c a n c e l l a ti o n o f L a rry ’s or i gi nal coverage are i m pl i ed t er m s of t he cert i f i cat e of i nsurance. A s gat hered f rom t he w r it t e n in s t r u m e n tit s e lf
— t he ce rt i f i ca t e of

i ns uranc e— and notfrom M e tL i fe ’s a c ti o n s , L a rry ’s o ri g i n a l c o v e ra g e e x p l i c i tl y e n d e d u p o n G l e n d a ’s re ti re m e n t, a n d t h e R i c e s t h e re fo re h a d to a p p l y fo r a p e rs o n a l p o l i c y fo r L a rryW e rec o g n i ze tha t M e tLi fe h a s sta ted th a t i t g a v e La rr y an o p p o rt u n i ty 9 t o a ppl y for

a perso nal pol i cy i n 2 005
. I n M et Li fe’ s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on, i tst at ed t hati td i d so “as a co ur t esy. ” Becau se t he par t i es’ or i gi nal i nsurance c o n tra c t c o u l d n o t b e c h a n g e d th ro u g h w a i v e r o r e s to p p e l to e n d L a rry ’s or i gi nal co verage on any dat e ot her t han G l end a’ s ret i rem ent , M et Li fe w as not contract ual l y requi red t o ext end t he personal pol i cy convers i on per i od t hatw as c o n d i ti o n e d o n G l e n d a ’s reti rem e n t. 16 w i t hi n t hi rt y- one da ys aft er he r ret i rem ent . Bec aus e t he ce rt i f i ca t e o f 9 i n s u ra n c e p a rti c u l a rl y d e s c rib e d t h e s e c o n d i ti o n s , w e c o n c l u d e th a t M e tL i fe ’s s e n d in g n o t ic e o f

t h e c o n d it io n s a ft e r G le n d a re t ire d w a s n e it h e r “ c le a r ly w it h in t h e c o n t e m p la t i o n o f t h e p a rt ie s ” n o r

“ n e c e s s a r

y . . . t o e f

fe c t u a t e t h e fu ll pur pose of

the cont ract . ” See N eel , 9 8 2 S .W .2 d a t 8 8 8 ; se e a l so H art l and v. Progres si ve C ounty M ut . I ns . Co. , 2 90 S. W
. 3d 318, 324 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2009 , no p et . ) ( “A n ot i ce of ca nce l l at i on i s notrequ i red w hen a p o l i c y e x p i re s u n d e r its o w n t e rm s .” ). W h i l e i t m a y s e e m re a s o n a b l e to re q u i re such addi t i onal not i ce as an i m pl i ed t er m o f the cer t i f i cat e o f

i nsurance und er t he ci rcum st ances of t hi s case, “[ i ] ti s n o tenoug h t o say t hatan i m pl i ed covenan ti s necessary i n order to m ake the con t ractfai r . ” N eel , 982 S. W
. 2d a t 8 8 9 ; see U ni versal H eal t h S er vs. , I nc. , 1 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 8
. W e al so cannot agree w i t h t he R i ces t hatM et Li fe’ s provi di ng an app l i ca t i on for m for

a perso nal i ns uranc e pol i cy for La r r y i s an i m pl i ed t er m of t he or i gi nal cert i f i cat e of i nsuran ce. A l t hou gh t he R i ces quest i on ho w t hey17

w ere supposed t o appl y for a personal p ol i cy w i t hou tan “app l i cat i on for m ” t hat w as provi ded by M etL i fe, t he ce rt i f i ca t e o f i ns uranc e d oes notrequ i re a ny par t i cul ar

for m ; i tpl aces t he burden on t he depen dant t o appl y for a personal pol i cy “i n w r i t i ng” dur i ng t he appl i ca t i on per i od. The Ri ce s hav e notci t ed any a u th o ri ty h o l d i n g th a t a n i n su ran c e c o m p a n y h a s an i m p l i e d co n tra c tu a l d u ty to suppl y an “appl i cat i on for m ” i n a si m i l ar ci rcum st ance. For al l of t hes e rea so ns , w e o ver r ul e t he Ri ce s’ t hi rd poi ntt o t he ext ent th a t t h e i r bre a c h o f c o n tra c t c l a i m res ts o n a b rea c h o f t h e o ri g i n a l ce rt i fi c a te of i n s u ra n c e ; w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Ri c e s h a v e n o t p re s e n t e d m o re t han a s c in t illa o f

e v id e n c e t o s u p p o rtt h a tc la im
. O n t he ot her hand , w e concl ude t hatt he evi dence creat es a genui ne fact que st i on rega rdi ng w het her M et Li fe b rea che d a ne w , s epa rat e a gree m ent rega rdi ng L ar r

y’ s cov erage . As w e h ave ex pl ai ned , U nder Texas l aw , t he requi rem ent s of a val i d contractare: ( 1) an of fer ; ( 2) an ac ce pt anc e i n s t r i ctco m pl i anc e w i t h t he t er m s of t he of fe r ; ( 3) a m e e t i n g o f t h e m i n d s ; ( 4) e a c h p a rt y ’ s c o n s e n t t o t he t er m s; an d ( 5 ) ex ec ut i on a nd de l i ver y of t he con t rac tw i t h t he i nt entt hati tbe m utua l a nd bi ndi ng. Consi derat i on i s al so a fu n d a m e n tal elem e n t of a v a l i d co n tra c t. H u b b a rd v . S h a n k le , 1 3 8 S .W .3 d 4 7 4 , 4 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (c i ta ti o n o m i tte d ); see Bu rges v. M osl ey , 304 S
. W
. 3d 623, 629 (Tex. A p p .— T y l e r

2 0 1 0 , no pe t . ) ( “F or a co ntrac tt o e xi st, t he re m us tbe an offe r,18

a c c e p ta n c e , a n d c o n s i d e ra ti o n .” ); D o m in g o v . M it c h e ll , 257 S. W
. 3d 34, 39 (T e x . A p p .— A m a ri l l o 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). To det er m i ne w het her an o ffer and ac ce pt anc e a nd t hus a “m ee t i ng of t he m i nds ” occ ur red, w e u se an obj ec t i ve st and ard, “ con si der i ng w hatt he par t i es di d and sai d , n o tt hei r subj ect i ve st at es of m i nd. ” D om i ngo , 257 S. W
. 3d at39 (ci t i ng K om etv. G raves , 40 S. W
. 3d 59 6, 60 1 (Tex
. A pp. — S an A n to n i o 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.)); see P aci w est , I nc. v. W ar ner A l an Props. , LLC , 266 S .W .3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 8 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ); A nge l ou v . A f r i ca n O verse as U ni on , 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 200 0, no pet . ) ( “Unexp res se d s ubj ec t i ve i nt enti s i r rel eva nt . ”)
. ” [ V ] al uab l e a nd su f f i ci entco ns i derat i on for a c ont rac tm ay con si stof ei t her a ben ef i tt o t he p rom i so r o r a los s o r de tr i m e n t t o the p rom i se e . T h u s w h e n a p rom i se e ac ts to hi s det r i m enti n rel i anc e u pon a prom i se , t here i s su f f i ci entco ns i derat i on t o bi nd t he prom i sor

t o hi s prom i se. ” J e n n i n g s v . Ra d i o St a t i o n KS CS , 708 S. W
. 2d 60, 6 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o r tW o r t h 1 9 8 6 , n o w ri t); se e F requ entFl yer D epo t , I nc. v. A m . A i r l i nes, I nc. , 2 8 1 S .W .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 4 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rth 2 0 0 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ), cert . deni ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 2 0 6 1 (2 0 1 0 ). I n U l i co , th e s u p re m e c o u rt u p h e l d t h e t ri a l c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n to d i s re g a rd t he j ur y’ s det er m i nat i on t hatt he part i es ha d e nt ered i nt o a s epa rat e a gree m ent fo r th e p a y m e n t o f th e in s u re d ’s d e fe n s e c o s ts . U l i co , 262 S. W
. 3d a t789– 90.C raddo ck i s l i ke w i se di st i ngui sh abl e b ec aus e i n C raddo ck , t he i nsured 10 di d not argue t hat a new con t rac t had bee n crea t ed butonl y t hatt he cov erage of hi s cont ractw i t h t he i nsurer had been ch anged by w ai ver , and t he suprem e cou rts t at ed t hat“ no c ons i derat i on m ove d” t o the i ns urer aft er t he guns hot acci dent for

an assum pt i on o f l i a b i l i ty. 13 0 T ex. at25 2– 55 , 10 9 S
. W
. 2d at 1 6 5
– 6 7 . Si m i l ar l y, t he i ns ured i n M it c h e ll re l i e d on l y on w a i ve r a nd e s t op pel and di d not contend t h a t a n e w c o nt racthad been creat ed. 33 5 S
. W
. 2d at 707. 19 Th e s u p re m e c o u rt re a s o n e d t h a t t h e re w a s n o c o n s i d e ra t i o n fo r s uch a separat e agreem ent ; t he i nsured di d not present any evi dence t hatt he i nsurer rec ei ved a ben ef i ti n exch ang e for cont i nui ng paym entof t he cos t s or

t hatt he i nsured suf

fered a det r i m entby und ert aki ng an ob l i gat i on, sur render i ng a l egal ri g h t, c h a n g i n g w h e th e r i t w o u ld h a v e p a i d th e c o s ts b a s e d o n th e i n s u re r’s repres e nt a t i on t ha ti tw ou l d pa y t he m , o r o t he r w i s e a c t i ng i n a d i f

fe re ntw ay b e c a u s e th e i n s u re r a g re e d to p a y th e c o s ts . I d. U nl i ke i n U l i co , t he R i ces suf fered a det r i m entbecause G l enda con t i nued t o pa y prem i um s for

La r r y’ s cov erage for

m ore t han t w o ye ars w hi l e rel yi ng on M e t L ife ’s re p re s e n t a t io n s t h a th e h a d c o v e ra g e , a n d s h e a v e r re d in h e r a f f id a v it t hatbe ca us e o f

“ M et Li fe’ s ca nce l l at i on of t he pol i cy aft er

21⁄2 ye ars and t he s t a t e o f [L a r r y ’s ] h e a lt h ,” s h e w a s u n a b le “ t o n o w o b t a in c o v e ra g e ” fo r h im
. A l so , M et Li fe rec ei ved t he prem i um s and ke pt t hem for s eve ral ye ars al t hough i tevent ual l y repai d t hem
. Thu s, revi ew i ng t he rec o rd i n t he l i ght m ost 10 favo rabl e t o t he Ri ce s, w e c onc l ude t hatt he evi den ce rai se s a g enu i ne i ss ue ofM et Li fe rel i es on the factt hatt he opti on t hatG l enda cho se i n response 11 to M e tL i fe ’s M a y 2 0 0 3 l e tte r s ta te d , “C O N T IN U E M Y G U L C O V E R A G E .” Butw e c o n c l u d e t h a t M e t L i fe ’ s l e t t e r m a y re a s o n a b l y b e re a d t o a l s o gi ve G l end a t he opt i on of co nt i nui ng L ar r

y’ s cov erage be ca us e t he t op r i ght
- han d cor ner of t he l et t er

spec i f i ca l l y show ed t hathi s cov erage w as st i l l effec t i ve, t he le t t e r t o ld G le n d a t h a th e r “ c u r re n tc o v e ra g e [ w o u ld ] re m a in e f fe c t iv e ,” a n d it st at ed she w oul d conti nue t o pay t he sa m e p rem i um rat es ( w hi ch i ncl uded La r r y’ s prem i um ) as s he had w hen s he w as em pl oye d w i t h Avon. 20 m at er i al fac taboutw het her t he Ri ce s gav e cons i derat i on for a new ag ree m ent w i t h M et Li fe regardi ng Lar r y’ s coverage. S i m i l ar l y, w e al so hol d t hatt he evi dence rai ses a genu i ne i ssue of m at er i al fac ton t he rem ai ni ng el em en t s of t he for m at i on of

a new co nt rac tan d on a breach of

t hatcont ract . The e v i d e n ce, w hen vi ew ed obj ect i vel y rat her t han s u bje c t iv e ly (in o t h e r w o rd s , w h e n lo o k in g a t w h a t t h e p a rt ie s a c t u a lly s a id in t hei r 2 00 3 exchang es and d i sregardi ng M et Li fe’ s 2 00 5 content i on t hati tw as m e rel y m i sta k e n w h e n i t re p res e n ted tha t La rr y m a i n tai n e d c o v e rag e ), p res e n ts a g e n u i n e fa c t i s s u e o n o ffe r, a c c e p ta n c e , m e e ti n g o f th e m i n d s , a n d d e l i v e ry of t he con t rac t w i t h t he i nt ent i on t hat i t be m ut ual and bi ndi ng. Pa r t i cu l ar l y, th e ev i d e n c e sh o w s th e foll o w i n g : ( 1 ) i n M a y 2 0 0 3 , M e tL i fe s e n t a l e tter t o G l end a t hatga ve h er t he opt i on of

co nt i nui ng he r

co verage , ( 2) G l end a

11 res ponde d t o t he l et t er by i nfor m i ng M et Li fe t hats he w ant ed t o ret ai n t he cov erage , ( 3) M et Li fe’ s em pl oye e, Sum m er , t ol d Gl end a t hatt he cov erage “w oul d nei t her

l aps e nor

be ca nce l l ed, ” ( 4) G l end a p ai d prem i um s for he r ow nW e n ot e t hatM et Li fe’ s br i ef i ndi ca t es i t s bel i ef

t hatt he part i es had t he 12 aut hor i t y t o e nt er

i nt o a ne w ag ree m entfor co verage aft er

t he cov erage or i gi nal l y t er m i nat ed upo n G l enda’ s ret i rem ent . Speci f i cal l y, M et Li fe concedes i n i t s bri ef

that“[ a] l t hou gh [ G l enda’ s] ret i rem entd at e w as i n 2 00 3 an d [ Lar r y’ s] 21 cov erage an d for L ar r y’ s cov erage m ul t i pl e t i m es aft er M ay 200 3, an d (5 ) M e tL i fe re s p o n d e d b y s e n d i n g a re p o rt to G l e n d a th a t c o n fi rm e d L a rry ’s coverage. A l so, t he evi dence creat es a genui ne facti ssue on a breach of the new , se parat e c ont rac tan d res ul t i ng da m age s bec aus e M et Li fe l at er s t oppe d bi l l i ng for La r r y’ s prem i um s and t ol d G l en da t hatLa r r y di d notha ve cov erage , an d G l en d a c o u l d n o t o b t a i n o t h e r c o v e ra g e fo r L a r r y a ft e r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n of t he p o l i c y . See E l Pas o Prod. C o. v. V al enc e Operat i ng Co. , 112 S. W
. 3d 616, 621 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1st D i st . ] 200 3, pet . den i ed) (op. on reh ’ g) (exp l ai ni ng th a t a re p u d i a ti o n o f a c o n tra c t c o m p ri s e s a b re a c h o f i t); B u mb v . I n t e rC o mp Te c h s . , L
. L
. C. , 64 S. W
. 3d 123, 125 (Te x. App
. — Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 2001 , n o p e t.) (sa m e ). For t hese reasons, i ndu l gi ng every rea so n a bl e i nference i n t he R i ces’ favor , w e hol d t hat t he t r i al cour t er red by grant i ng M et Li fe’ s n o -evi dence sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on agai nstt he R i ces’ breach of cont ractcl ai m because th e re i s m o re th a n a s c i n ti l l a o f p ro b a ti v e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt th e R i c e s ’ th e o ry t hatM e tLi fe breached a new agreem entregardi ng Lar r y’ s coverage. 12r i ght t o conv ertt he group depend entl i fe coverage to a n i ndi vi dual pol i cy had

e x p i re d
. . ., M e tL i fe e x te n d e d th e c o n v e rs i o n o p ti o n .” 22 S ee S m i th , 2 8 8 S .W .3 d a t 4 2 4 ; S udan , 1 9 9 S .W .3 d a t2 9 2 . T h u s , w e s u s t a in th e R i c e s’ th i rd po i n t to th e e x ten t th a t i t re sts o n the i r arg u m e n t t h a t M e tLi fe breached a new cont ractfor t he coverage. D ut y of good fai t h a nd fai r

de al i ng I n t hei r se con d poi nt , t he Ri ce s cl ai m t hatt he t r i al co urter red by g rant i ng su m m ar y j udgm entagai ns tt hei r ba d fai t h ( brea ch of

t he duty of

good fai t h a nd fai r de al i ng) cl ai m . Tex as court s hav e l ong rec ogni z ed a c om m on l aw duty of g o o d fa i th a n d fa i r d e a lin g in i n s u ra n c e re l a ti o n s h i p s . Va n d e v e n t e r v . Al l Am. Li fe & C as . Co. , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d 7 0 3 , 7 2 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); see A r nol d v. N at ’ l Count y M ut . Fi re I ns . Co. , 72 5 S. W
. 2d 16 5, 167 (Tex. 1 9 8 7 ). A n in s u re r

b re a c h e s t h e d u t y o f g o o d fa it h a n d fa ir

d e a lin g w h e n it “w rongful l y c anc el s an i ns uranc e p ol i cy w i t houta rea so nab l e b asi s” an d t he i nsurer “knew or

shoul d ha v e k n o w n o f t hatfact . ” U ni on Ban ke rs I ns . Co. v. Shel t on , 8 8 9 S .W .2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ) (e x p l a i n i n g th a t th e “ i n s u re r’s a b i l i ty to u n i l a tera l l y ca n c e l an in s u ran c e p o l i c y an d the i n su red ’s i n a b i l i ty to preventcancel l at i on dem onst rat es a greatdi spar i t y i n b a rgai ni ng po w er b e tw e e n t h e t w o p a rti e s ” ); see C ol um bi a U ni versal Li fe I ns. C o. v. M i l es , 92323

S .W .2 d 8 0 3 , 8 1 1 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ); H opk i ns v. H i ghl and s I ns . Co. , 8 3 8 S .W .2 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 7 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 2 , n o w ri t). Th e Ri ces cont end t hatM et Li fe i s l i abl e for bad fai t h because i tcancel ed La r r y’ s cov erage ret roac t i vel y i n 2005 w hen t here w as no rea so nab l e b as i s for t he ca nce l l at i on and i ni t i al l y refus ed t o refund p rem i um s. W e h ave he l d t hatt he evi den ce rai se s a g enu i ne fac ti ss ue abo utw het her t he part i es form ed a con t rac ti n M ay 200 3 t hatgave La r r y new coverage . A cc ordi ngl y, w e c onc l ude t hatt here i s m ore t han a sci nt i l l a o f ev i dence t hatM et Li fe w rong ful l y cancel ed La r r y ’ s n e w c o v e ra g e w i t h o u t a re a s o n a b l e b a s i s a n d k n e w o r s h o u l d ha ve know n of

t hatfact
. The evi dence show s t hatM et Li fe t ol d G l enda t hather cov erage w oul d nei t her l aps e nor be ca nce l ed, co nt i nue d t o a cc eptprem i um s for L a r r y’ s c ov e ra ge for

o ve r tw o ye a rs , c on f i r m ed t o t he Ri c e s a ft e r 2003 t hroug h a G roup U ni versal Li fe Rep or tt hatLar r y st i l l had cov e rag e , a n d t hen c a nc e l e d t he c ov e ra ge w hi l e t e l l i ng he r t ha ti tw a s i n pl a c e t hrou gh J ul y 2005 ( w hi ch i s i ncon si st ent w i t h M et Li fe’ s cl ai m t hat t he coverage expi red i n M arch 200 3 upon G l end a’ s ret i rem entan d t hatLa r r y di d notobt ai n ne w co verage th ro u g h th e p a rti e s ’ c o m m u n i c a ti o n s ). W e con cl ude t hat a gen ui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fac t exi st s t o prec l ude t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci si on t o grantsum m ar y j udg m entagai nstt he R i ces on t hei r bad fai th clai m . W e the refo re s u sta i n the R i c e s’ se c o n d p o i n t.M et Li fe di d not exp res sl y l abe l i t s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on a s t o t he 13 Ri ce s’ prom i ss or

y e st oppe l cl ai m as t radi t i ona l or no- evi den ce . W e w i l l t rea tt he m ot i on a s a t radi t i ona l m ot i on be ca us e a no- evi den ce m ot i on m us ts pec i f y t he e l e m e n ts o f a c l a i m fo r w h i c h t h e re is n o e v i d e n c e . See T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ). 24 Prom i ssor

y est opp el I n t hei r fourt h poi nt , t he Ri ce s argue t hatt he t r i al co urter red by g rant i ng sum m ar y j udg m ent agai nst t hei r prom i ssor y est opp el cl ai m . The R i ces al l eged 13 i n t hei r p et i t i on t hatb y “cont i nui ng t o acceptp rem i um p aym ent s . . . , [ M et Li fe] prom i se d [ t he Ri ce s] t hat [ M et Li fe] w oul d con t i nue t o provi de i ns uranc e a s l ong a s th e p re m i u m s w e re p a i d .” T h e y a l s o a s s e rte d th a t th e y re l i e d o n M e tL i fe ’s a l l e g e d p rom i se b y c o n ti n u i n g to p a y th e p rem i u m s a n d b y n o t se e k i n g alt e rna te i nsurance for

Lar r y. M et Li fe m oved for sum m ar y j udg m ent agai nstt he R i ces’ prom i ssor

y est opp el cl ai m on th e g roun d, am ong ot hers, t hati tdi d not m ake any prom i se t hatLar r y’ s cov erage w oul d l as tforeve r . The Ri ce s res ponde d by di re c t i ng t he t r i a l c ou rtt o, a m on g ot he r d oc um e nt s , M e t L i fe ’ s M a y 10, 2003 l e tte r. A l t hough es t oppe l ba se d on an i ns urer ’ s m i srepres ent at i ons m ay notbe u s e d t o e x p a n d c o v e ra g e c o n t ra c t u a lly , a n in s u re r ’s a c t io n s c a n re s u ltin it bei ng est op p e d f rom refusi ng t o “m ake i t s i nsured w hol e” for “any dam ages [ t he i nsured] sust ai ns b ecause o f t he i nsurer ’ s act i ons. ” U l i co , 26 2 S
. W
. 3d at 78 2, 78 7. “I f

a prom i see has reasonabl y and detr i m ent al l y rel i ed on anA “prom i se” i s a “ m ani fest at i on of an i nt ent i on t o act. . . i n a speci f i ed 14 m anner , conveyed i n such a w ay t hatan ot her i s j ust i f i ed i n und erst andi ng t hat a c o m m i tm e n t h a s b e e n m a d e .” B l a c k ’s L a w D i c ti o n a ry 1 3 3 2 (9 th e d . 2 0 0 9 ). 25 o th e rw i s e u n e n fo rc e a b l e p ro m i s e , h e m a y h a v e a c a u s e o f a c ti o n fo r p ro m i s s o ry est opp el
. ” M CN E n e rg y E n t e rs . , I n c . v . Om a g ro d e Co l o m b i a , L
. D. C. , 98 S .W .3 d 7 6 6 , 7 7 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ); s e e In re W ee kl ey H om es , L. P. , 180 S
. W
. 3d 12 7 , 1 33 (Tex. 2005 ) (or i g. proce edi ng) (exp l ai ni ng t hatw hen “a prom i so r i nduc es s ubs t ant i al ac t i on or for bea ranc e b y another , prom i ssor

y est opp el prevent s any deni al of thatp rom i se i f

i nj ust i ce can b e a v o i d e d o n l y b y e n fo rc e m e n t” ).

“ T h e e l e m e n ts o f p ro m is s o ry e s to p p e l a re : (1 ) a p ro m i s e ,[ ] 14 ( 2) foreseeabi l i t y of

rel i ance on t he prom i se by t he prom i sor , and ( 3) subst ant i al det r i m ent al rel i ance by t he prom i see. ” H u b b a rd , 1 3 8 S .W .3 d a t 4 8 2 ; s e e M CN Energy En t ers. , I nc. , 9 8 S .W .3 d a t7 7 4 . A l t h o u g h p ro m is s o r y e s t o p p e l is nor m al l y a de fens i ve t heo r y, i tm ay se r

ve as a su bs t i t ut e f

or an uns ucc es sful b re a c h o f c o n tra c t c l a i m . S e e W h e e l e r v. W h i te , 398 S
. W
. 2d 9 3 , 9 7 (Tex. 1 9 6 5 ); M edi st ar

Cor p. v. Schm i dt , 26 7 S
. W
. 3d 15 0, 16 3 (Tex
. A pp. — S an A n to n i o 2 0 0 8 , p e ts . d e n i e d ). W e have hel d t hatt he R i ces’ breach of co nt ractcl ai m , to t he ext entt hat i tres t s on M et Li fe’ s brea chi ng t he ce rt i f i ca t e of i ns uranc e and does notres ton26

M et Li fe’s b rea c h i n g a s u b se q u e n t co n tra c t be tw e e n the p a rt i e s, ca n n o t su c c eed as a m at t er

of l aw because despi t e M et Li fe’ s act i o n s, Lar r y’ s coverage und er th e ce rt i fi c a te o f i n su ran c e w a s n o t ex ten d e d p a st G l e n d a ’s reti rem e n t. B e c a u se th e re w a s n o co n tra c t fo r La rr y ’s o ri g i n a l co v e rag e u n d e r t h e ce rt i fi c a te o f i n s u ra n c e p a s t M a rc h 2 0 0 3 , p ro m i s s o ry e s to p p e l m a y a p p l y to M e tL i fe ’s re p re s e n t a t i o n o f

t h a tc o v e ra g e if

a fa c t f in d e r

d e t e r m in e s t h a tt h e p a rt ie s d id not l at er

en t er i nt o a n ew co nt ractfor the coverage. Se e Doc t ors Hos p. 1997 , L. P. v. Sam buc a Houst on, L. P. , 154 S
. W
. 3 d 6 34, 636 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14 t h Di s t . ] 2004 , p e t . a ba t e d) (s t a t i ng t ha t“ Te xa s c ou rt s h a ve h e l d t hat prom i ssor

y est opp el becom es avai l abl e t o a cl ai m antonl y i n t he absence o f a v a l i d a n d e n fo rc e a b l e c o n tra c t” ); Secure C om m , I nc. v. A nde rso n , 31 S
. W
. 3d 428 , 431 n. 3 (Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 2 0 0 0 , no p et . ) ( “[ P] rom i ss or y e st oppe l an d b re a c h o f c o n tra c t m a y b e m u tu a l l y e x c l u s i v e c a u s e s o f a c ti o n .” ); see al so W heel er , 398 S
. W
. 2d at94, 97 ( hol di ng t hata pl ai nti ff c oul d rec ove r

on a p ro m i s s o ry e s to p p e l th e o ry w h e n p l e d a s a n a l te rn a ti v e to b re a c h o f c o n tra c t). M et Li fe’ s l et t er

t o Gl end a repres ent ed unde r a hea di ng of

“ C ove rage I nfor m at i on” t hatas of M a y 1 0, 20 03 , t he face am oun tof G l enda’ s “Spou se T erm ” cov erage w as $50, 000
. The l et t er not i f i ed G l end a, “ [ Y] our cu r rent coverage w i l l rem ai n ef fect i ve w hi l e you assess your choi ces, ” and i tt ol d her th a t M e tL i fe w a n te d to “ k e e p a p ro m i s e ” th a t i t h a d m a d e to h e r.27

G l e n d a ’s a ffid a v i t s a y s th a t a b o u t th re e w e e k s a fte r th e d a te o f M e tL i fe ’s l et t er , M et Li fe’ s em pl oyee, Su m m er , t ol d G l enda t hather coverage on t he pol i cy w o u ld n e it h e r

la p s e n o r

b e c a n c e le d . Ita ls o e x p la in s t h a tG le n d a “ re g u la r ly rec ei ved bi l l s f rom M et Li fe ent i t l ed ‘ G roup U ni versa l Li fe Pa ym entN ot i ce ’ an d a ‘ G roup U ni versa l Li fe Report ’ bot h st at i ng t he $50 , 000 co verage for [ La r r y] w as i ncl uded
. ” G l enda subm i tted th e 20 05 “G roup U ni versal Li fe Rep or t ” as e vi de nc e; t ha trep ort , un de r t he he ad i ng of “B eg i nn i ng V al ue s 1 2 / 3 1 / 0 4 ,” s ta te s , “S p o u s e R i d e r F a c e A m o u n t: 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 .“ W e concl ude t hatw hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostfavorabl e t o t he R i ces, th i s e v i d e n c e cre a te s a g e n u i n e i ss u e o f m a teri a l fac t as to w h e th e r M e tLi fe m a d e a p ro m is e t o c o n t in u e L a r r y ’s c o v e ra g e a n d w h e t h e r itw a s fo re s e e a b le to M e tL i fe th a t th e R i c e s w o u l d re l y o n th a t p ro m i s e . S ee Tex. R. Ci v. P. 166 a(c)
. Al t hough M et Li fe a rgue s t hatt he l ang uage rel at ed t o t he four i ns uranc e opt i ons t hatw ere pres ent ed t o G l end a i n M ay 200 5 on t he el ec t i on fo rm c o n c e rn s o n l y G l e n d a ’s c o v e ra g e a n d d o e s n o t e x p l i c i tl y m e n ti o n L a rry ’s cov erage , for

t he rea so ns s t at ed abo ve, w e con cl ude t hat a gen ui ne fac ti ss ue e x i s ts a s to w h e th e r M e tL i fe re p re s e n te d th a t b o th G l e n d a ’s a n d L a rry ’sM et Li fe d oes notex pres sl y c hal l eng e t he rel i anc e e l em enti n t he port i on 15 of i t s br i ef

rel at ed t o t he Ri ce s’ prom i ss or y est oppe l cl ai m ; w e w i l l ad dres s t he Ri ce s’ rel i anc e o n M et Li fe’ s repres ent at i on of La r r y’ s cov erage be l ow w hen w e ana l yz e t he t r i al cou rt ’ s dec i si on t o grant su m m ar y j udgm ent on som e o f t he R i ces’ ot her

cl ai m s. 28 covera ge w ou l d be e xt e nd e d i f s he c ho s e t he f i rs t op t i on t ha t w a s l abel ed

“ C O N T IN U E M Y G U L C O V E R A G E .” 15 M et Li fe arg u es t hatt he R i ces’ prom i ssor y est opp el cl ai m fai l s because G l enda w as deem ed t o know t he t er m s contai ned i n t he cert i f i cat e of i nsurance, i ncl udi ng t he t er m t hatLa r r y’ s cov erage en ded upon he r ret i rem ent . W e h ave not ed t hata nam ed i ns ured i s pres um ed t o ha ve rea d i t s pol i cy and t o k now t he p o l i c y ’s c o n te n ts . Jen ki ns v. St at e & C ounty M ut . Fi re I ns . Co. , 287 S. W
. 3d 89 1, 89 7 (Tex
. A pp. — For tW or t h 2 00 9, p e t . deni ed)
. H ow ever , t he T exas S uprem e C our thas h el d t hatthi s pres um pt i on m ay be overcom e by proof t hat th e i n s u re d d i d n o t k n o w t h e p o l i c y ’s c o n te n ts w h e n it w a s a c c e p te d
. C ol oni al Sav. A ss ’ n v. Tayl or , 544 S
. W
. 2d 116, 1 1 9 ( Tex. 1976 ) (quot i ng F i re m a n ’s Fund I nde m . C o. v . B oy l e Gen. Ti re Co. , 3 9 2 S .W .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 5 (T e x .1 9 6 5 )); see I ns. N etw or k of

Tex. v. K l oesel , 2 66 S. W
. 3d 456 , 4 76 (Tex. A pp. — C or pus C h ri s ti 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ); U ni on N at . Ban k of Li t t l e Ro ck v. M o ri a rt y , 746 S. W
. 2 d 2 49, 250– 51 (Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 198 7, w r i tde ni ed) (exp l ai ni ng29

t hatan ” i ns ured i s al l ow ed t o rel y on t he kno w l edg e a nd e xpe rt i se of t he i n s u re r” ). Th e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a tt h e Ri c e s p a i d p re m i u m s fo r L a r r y ’ s c o verage fo r o v e r tw o y e a rs a ft e r

G le n d a re t ire d a n d t h a tA n g e lic a R id g e h a d t o e x p la in t o Gl end a i n 200 5 t hat La r r y no l onge r had co verage be ca us e Gl end a t hough t t hata quar t er l y bi l l ’ s om i ssi on of a prem i um charge for hi s coverage “w as a m i st ake. ” V i ew ed i n t he l i ght m ost favorabl e t o t he R i ces, t hi s evi dence creat es a g enu i ne fac ti ss ue as t o w het her t he Ri ce s had kno w l edg e of t he t er m of t he cert i f i cat e of

i nsurance t hatcaused Lar r y’ s o ri g i nal coverage t o expi re. Th erefore, w e cannot agree w i t h M et Li fe t hatfor sum m ar

y j udg m entpur poses, t h e R ic e s a re d e e m e d t o k n o w t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e ir p o lic y o r

t h a tt h e ir prom i ssor

y est opp el cl ai m m ustfai l on t hatbasi s. W e a ls o a g re e w it h t h e R ic e s ’ s t a t e m e n tt h a tu n d e r t h e c irc u m s t a n c e s in t hi s ca se , i tw oul d be unrea so nab l e t o charge t hem w i t h k now i ng a nd fol l ow i ng t he t er m s of the ce rt i f i ca t e o f i ns uranc e w hen M et Li fe, w hi ch i ss ued t he ce rt i f i ca t e, di d notev en fol l ow i t s ow n t er m s for ove r tw o ye ars by c o n ti n u o u s l y a c c e p ti n g q u a rte rl y p re m i u m s fo r L a rry ’s c o v e ra g e a fte r G l e n d a ’s ret i rem ent . Fi nal l y, ev en i f t he Ri ce s ac t ual l y k new ab outt he term of t he c e rti fi c a te th a t e n d e d L a rry ’s c o v e ra g e u p o n G l e n d a ’s re ti re m e n t o r w e re charged w i t h const r uct i ve know l edge of t hat t er m , M et Li fe’ s act s t hatoccur redM et Li fe al so argues i n response t o som e of t he R i ces’ ot her

poi nt s t hat 16 t hey w ere dee m ed t o know t he cont ent s of t hei r pol i cy. Fo r

t he sa m e rea so ns th a t w e d e c l i n e to a c c e p t M e tL i fe ’s re a s o n i n g a s to th e R i c e s ’ p ro m i s s o ry e s to p p e l c l a i m , w e a l s o d e c l i n e to d o s o a s to th o s e p o i n ts . 30 aft er her ret i rem entgave t hem a reason t o bel i ev e th a t M e t Li fe w as ei t her al t er i ng or

n oten forci ng t hatter m an d t hatLarr y’ s coverage had been ext ended d e s p i t e t h e t e r m. 16 For t hese reasons, w e hol d t hat , i n d u l gi ng al l i nferences i n t he R i ces’ favo r , t he t r i al cou rt er red by g rant i ng M et Li fe’ s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on on th e R i c e s ’ p ro m i s s o ry e s to p p e l c l a i m . W e s u s ta i n th e R i c e s ’ fo u rth p o i n t. D TPA I n t hei r

f i ft h poi nt , t he R i ce s argue t hatt he t r i al co urter red by g rant i ng sum m ar y j udg m entagai nstthei r D TP A cl ai m . I n t he t r i al cour t , M et Li fe m oved for sum m ar

y j udg m ento n t hatcl ai m o n t he groun d t hatthere w as no evi dence o f i t. Fal se, m i sl eadi ng, or decept i ve act s or

pract i ces The DTPA crea t es a ca us e o f ac t i on w hen a co ns um er s uf fers f rom “[ f] al se , m i sl ea di ng, or dece pt i ve ac t s or

prac t i ce s i n t he con duc tof an y t rade or co m m erce . ” Tex. Bus
. & Com
. Code Ann. § 17. 46(a)
. Such “ ac t s or pract i ces” i ncl ude “ represent i ng t hat goo ds or ser vi ces have .
. . charact er i st i cs

. . . w hi ch t hey do n otha ve” an d “repres ent i ng t hatan ag ree m entco nfers or31

i nvol ves r i ghts , rem edi es, or obl i gat i ons w hi ch i t does not have or i nvol ve. ” I d. § 1 7 .4 6 (b )(5 ), (1 2 ); se e C om m onw ea l t h Ll oyds I ns . Co. v. D ow ns , 853 S. W
. 2d 1 0 4 , 1 1 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 3 , w ri t d e n i e d ). T o p re v a i l o n a D T P A c l a i m , a p l a in t iff m u s t p ro v e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s m i srepresent at i on w as t he produ ci ng cause of t he pl ai nt i f f’ s i nj ur i es. Tex
. Bu s. & C o m . C o d e A n n . § 1 7 .5 0 (a ); A l exander v. Tu rt ur & A ssocs. , I nc. , 146 S .W .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); M ai n Pl ace C ust om H om es, I nc. v. H onaker , 192 S. W
. 3d 604 , 6 16 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2006, pe t . de ni ed)
. Produc i ng ca us e requ i res t hatt he de fend ant ’ s ac tbe bot h a ca us e- i n- fac tan d a

“ s u b s ta n ti a l fa c to r” i n c a u s i n g th e i nju r i e s . H onaker , 192 S. W
. 3d a t616. The pl ai nt i f

f m us tal so prove t hati trel i ed on t he defend ant ’ s m i srepres ent at i on to i ts d e tri m e n t. T e x . B u s . & C o m . C o d e A n n . § 1 7 .5 0 (a )(1 )(B ). The Ri ce s con t end t hatM et Li fe’ s M ay 10, 2003 l et t er , G l end a’ s phone con versa t i on w i t h Sum m er , and M et Li fe’ s prol onge d ac ce pt anc e o f prem i um s creat e a g e n ui ne factdi sput e about w het her M et Li fe engaged i n fal se, m i sl ea di ng, or

de ce pt i ve ac t s bec aus e i tm i srepres ent ed t hatal l of t he t er m s of h e r o r ig in a l in s u ra n c e p o lic y , in c lu d in g L a r r y ’s c o v e ra g e , w o u ld b e c o n t in u e d if she el ect ed t o do so. W e agree. M e t L i fe ’ s l e t t e r

ex pl i c i t l y s t a t e d t ha tas o f M a y 2003, L a r r

y ha d $50, 000 in c o v e ra g e . Itt h e n t o ld G le n d a t h a tt h e “ c u r re n tc o v e ra g e w o u ld re m a inM et Li fe c ont end s t hat t he “c r ux of [ t he Ri ce s’ ] cl ai m s unde r t he D TPA 17 i s M e tLi fe’s a l l e g e d w ron g fu l t e rm i n a ti o n . . . as o p p o se d to m i srepres ent at i ons . ” Butt he Ri ce s’ ap pel l at e b r i ef an d t hei r

s um m ar

y j udgm ent re s p o n s e s h o w t h a t th e y b a s e t h e i r D T P A c l a i m s o n M e tL i fe ’s M a y 2 0 0 3 l e tte r, M e t L ife ’s c o n v e rs a t io n w it h G le n d a , a n d M e t L ife ’s a c c e p t a n c e o f q u a rt e r ly prem i um paym ent s. 32 ef fec t i ve” an d a ppe ared t o gi ve he r the opt i on t o c ont i nue t hatco verage by c o n ti n u i n g to “ p a y th e s a m e ra te s a s w h e n [sh e w a s ] a n a c t i v e e m p l o y e e .” W e h o ld t h a t u n d e r t h e re le v a n tn o -e v id e n c e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n ts t a n d a rd s , t h is evi den ce an d t he ot her ev i den ce de t ai l ed abo ve crea t es a f ac ti ss ue abo ut w het her

M et Li fe m i srepresent ed t he conti nua ti o n of Lar r y’ s coverage, p re c lu d in g s u m m a r

y ju d g m e n to n t h a tp a rto f t h e R ic e s ’ D T P A c la im
. 17 S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ); Le nn ar C or p. v. G rea tA m . I ns . Co. , 200 S. W
. 3d 651 , 700 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2006 , pe t s. de ni ed) (op. on reh’ g) ( rel ati n g th a t a n i n s u re r’s a ffir m a ti v e m i s re p re s e n ta ti o n th a t c re a te s a n i n s u re d ’s m i s ta k e n b e l i e f a b o u t c o v e ra g e m a y b e a c ti o n a b l e u n d e r th e D T P A ); S ta te F a rm Fi re & C as . Co. v. G ros , 818 S. W
. 2d 908, 912– 13 ( Te x. App
. — Aus t i n 1991, no w r i t) ( hol di ng t hatan i ns urer w as l i abl e u nde r

t he D TPA for

m i srepres ent i ng th e te rm s o f a n i n s u ra n c e p o l i c y ). M et Li fe as se rt s, how eve r , t hati f t here w as a m i srepres ent at i on, i tca nnot be a p roduc i ng c aus e o f t he Ri ce s’ i nj ur i es an d t he Ri ce s cou l d notha ve d e tr i m e n tal l y rel i ed on i tbecause ( 1) Lar r y had an op por t uni t y t o purchase aT h e p a rt i e s a g ree d d u ri n g o ral arg u m e n t t h a t t h e p rem i u m p a y m e n ts 18 have no w been proper l y refund ed t o t he R i ces. Th e sup rem e co ur thas hel d t hatcour t s m ay not consi der evi dence t hat 19 i s at t ac hed t o a m ova nt ’ s no- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm entm ot i on un l ess t he evi dence “creat es a f actquest i on. ” Bi nur v. Ja cob o , 135 S. W
. 3d 646, 651 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); se e Garci a v . St at e F ar m Ll oyds , 28 7 S. W
. 3d 809, 816 (Tex. A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 33 perso nal pol i cy for m M et Li fe i n Decem ber 2005 butfai l ed t o do so an d ( 2) t he R i ces’ prem i um s for

Larr y’ s cov erage have been ret ur ned t o t hem w i t h i nt erest (after the y fi l e d the i r l a w su i t)
. B u t ev e n i f w e co n side r M e tLi fe’s e v i d e n c e to 18 su pporti t s no- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm entm ot i on, tha tev i den ce doe s not 19 concl usi vel y est abl i sh t hatM e tLi fe gave Lar r y an opp or t uni t y t o purchase a p e rso n a l p o l i c y i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . A n g e l i c a R i d g e ’s a ffi d a v i t d o e s n o t i n d i c a te t hat sh e exp res sl y t ol d G l end a t hat sh e cou l d purcha se a perso nal po l i cy for Lar r y. A nd w hi l e t he af fi d a v i tst at es t hatA ngel i ca t ol d G l enda i n D ecem ber 2 0 0 5 th a t s h e w o u l d “ re q u e s t a c o n v e rs i o n n o ti c e ” b a s e d o n G l e n d a ’s “cancel l ed spouse r i der ” and asser t s t hatsuch a not i ce w as m ai l ed t o G l enda, G l end a’ s af

f i dav i tst at es t hatshe nev er rec ei ved any not i ce of t he ca nce l l at i on of Lar r y’ s coverage and t hat A ngel i ca t ol d her t hatan agentw oul d contacther abou tpurchasi ng a personal pol i cy but t hatshe w as never cont act ed by an a g e n t.34

A s t o M et Li fe’ s second argum ent , the R i ces concede t hatM et Li fe has ret ur ned m oney equal to t he prem i um s t hatthey p ai d for Lar r y’ s coverage aft er G l end a’ s ret i rem ent . H ow eve r , w e c onc l ude t hatt he evi den ce pres ent ed by t he R ic e s s t ill c re a t e s a fa c tis s u e o n d e t r im e n t a l re lia n c e . G le n d a ’s a f f id a v it c on c l ud e s b y s t a t i ng , “ Due t o M et Li fe’ s c a nc e l l a t i on o f t he p ol i c y a ft e r

21⁄2 y e a rs a n d th e s ta te o f m y h u s b a n d [‘]s h e a l th , i t i s n o t w i th i n m y fa m i l y ’s f i na nc i al m ea ns t o n ow ob t ai n c ov erage for m y h us ba nd
. ” I nd ul gi ng ev ery i nference i n t he R i ces’ favor , w e hol d t hatt hi s st at em entad e q u a tel y rel at es t h a tt h e p a s s a g e o f t im e a s s o c ia t e d w it h M e t L ife ’s a lle g e d ly w ro n g fu l a c t s (in w hi ch t he Ri ce s t hough tt hatLar r y had cove rage w hen he di d not) de pr i ved t he R i c e s o f

t h e o p p o rtu n i ty to o b ta i n c o v e ra g e e l s e w h e re . See S udan , 199 S. W
. 3d a t2 92
. T h u s , w e h o l d t h a tt h e s t a t e m e n tc o m p r i s e s m ore t han a s c i n ti l l a o f e v i d e n c e o f th e R i c e s ’ d e t ri m e n ta l re l i a n c e o n M e tL i fe ’s represent at i on t o G l enda even i f , as M et Li fe argues, t he st at em entdoes notuse th e w o rd s “ re l y ” o r “ re l i a n c e ” b u t i n s te a d u s e s th e w o rd “ c a n c e l l a ti o n .” S e e S m i th , 2 8 8 S .W .3 d a t 4 2 4 . For t hes e rea so ns , w e c onc l ude t hatt he t r i al cou rter red by g rant i ng M e t L ife ’s s u m m a r

y ju d g m e n tm o t io n a g a in s tt h e p a rto f t h e R ic e s ’ D T P A c la im t hatal l ege s t hatM etL i fe e nga ged i n fal se , m i sl ea di ng, or de ce pt i ve ac t s or p rac ti c e s, an d w e su sta i n the R i c e s’ fi fth p o i n t t o tha t ex ten t.35

U n c o n sc i o n a b i l i ty N e x t, th e R ic e s a s s e rt th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y g ra n ti n g M e tL i fe ’s s u m m a r y ju d g m e n tm o t io n a g a in s tt h e ir D T P A u n c o n s c io n a b ilit y c la im
. To m ai nt ai n a cl ai m for unc ons ci ona bi l i t y unde r t he D TPA , a pl ai nt i f f m us tprove t hati tsuf

fered f rom an ac tor prac t i ce t hat , t o t he pl ai nt i f f’ s det r i m ent , t ook a d v a n t a g e o f

it s la c k o f

k n o w le d g e , a b ilit y , e x p e r ie n c e , o r c a p a c it y t o a g ro s s ly un fai r de g re e . S ee T e x . B u s . & C o m . C o d e A n n . § § 1 7 .4 5 (5 ), .5 0 (a )(3 ); B rad fo rd v
. V e n to , 48 S. W
. 3d 74 9, 76 0 (Tex
. 20 01 ) ( “U ncon sci onab i l i t y und er t he D TPA i s an obj ec t i ve st and ard for w hi ch sc i ent er

i s i r rel eva nt . ”)
. To prove an unc ons ci ona bl e ac t i on or co urse of

ac t i on, a pl ai nt i f

f m us ts how t hatt he res ul t i ng unfai r nes s w as gl ar i ngl y no t i ce abl e, f l agrant , co m pl et e, an d u n m i ti g a te d
. In s . C o . o f N . A m . v . M o r r is , 9 8 1 S .W .2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ). M e tLi fe m o v e d for su m m a ry j u d g m e n t on the R i c e s’ u n c o n sc i o n a b i l i ty cl ai m on a no- evi dence basi s. The evi dence t hatt he R i ces present ed, vi ew ed i n th e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e t o t h e m , sh o w s th a t M e tL i fe re p re s e n te d th a t L a rry had cov erage w hen t he R i ces di d not know t hathe di d not have coverage under t he ce rt i f i ca t e o f

i ns uranc e, ac ce pt ed prem i um s for t he al l ege d non cov erage for o v e r tw o y e a rs a n d d id n o tp ro p e r ly re fu n d t h e m u n t il a ft e r t h e R ic e s f ile d t h e ir m ot i on for

ne w t r i al , nev er se ntt he Ri ce s w r i t t en not i ce of t he t er m i nat i on of L a r r y ’s c o v e ra g e w h e n its a id t h a titw o u ld , t o ld G le n d a t h a ta n a g e n tw o u ld36

contacther

about purchasi ng a personal pol i cy for Lar r y w hen an agen tnever di d s o, an d t herefore l eftt he Ri ce s w i t houtan oppo rt uni t y t o obt ai n c ove rage for Lar r y t hroug h M et Li fe or el sew here ( unl ess t he par t i es’ exchang es creat ed new coverage for

Lar r y i n M ay 20 03 )
. W e concl ude t hatt hese fact s com pr i se m ore t han a sc i nt i l l a of ev i den ce of

unc ons ci ona bi l i t y un der t he st and ard a bove a n d th e re fo re p re c l u d e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. See T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ); S m i th , 2 8 8 S .W .3 d at 4 2 4 . T h u s, w e su sta i n the rem a i n i n g p o rt i o n o f t h e R i c e s’ fi fth p o i n t. I ns uranc e c ode I n t hei r s i xt h poi nt , t he Ri ce s as se rtt hatt he t r i al courter red by g rant i ng M e t L ife ’s s u m m a r

y ju d g m e n tm o t io n a g a in s tt h e ir in s u ra n c e c o d e c la im
. T h e R ic e s p le d t h a tM e t L ife v io la t e d c h a p t e r 5 4 1 o f

t h a tc o d e b e c a u s e it m i srepresent ed “t he i nsurance pol i cy by m aki ng un t r ue st at em ent s of m at er i al fa c t i n re g a rd to th e p o l i c y ” a n d b y fa i l i n g “ to d i s c l o s e m a te ri a l fa c ts i n re g a rd t o coverage. ” Th e i nsurance code creat es a cause of act i on for

dam ages caused by an i nsurer ’ s m i srepresent i ng t he t er m s or benefi t s of an i nsurance pol i cy or by an i n s u re r’s e n g a g i n g i n a n a c t “ s p e c i fi c a l l y e n u m e ra te d i n S e c ti o n 1 7 .4 6 (b ), B u s i n e s s & C o m m e rc e C o d e , a s a n u n l a w fu l d e c e p ti v e tra d e p ra c t i c e .” T e x . I n s . C o d e A n n . § 5 4 1 .1 5 1 ; s e e i d
. § 541
. 051 ( 1)
. W e h ave he l d t hatt he37

Ri ce s provi ded m ore t han a sc i nt i l l a o f ev i den ce t hat M et Li fe m i srepres ent ed t he t er m s or

b e n e fi ts of

Lar r y’ s coverage and t hatt he R i ces’ det r i m ent al rel i ance o n tha t m i sre p res e n tati o n ca u se d th e m d a m a g e s b y p rec l u d i n g the i r op p o rt u n i ty t o obtai n coverage el sew here. Thu s, for t he sam e reasons t hatw e sust ai ned t he R i ces’ f i ft h poi nt , w e al so sust ai n t hei r si xt h poi ntand hol d t hatt he t r i al cour ter red by grant i ng M etLi fe’s su m m ar y j udg m entm ot i on as t o t he R i ces’ cl ai m under

t he i nsurance code. B rea c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty I n t hei r s eve nt h poi nt , t he Ri ce s con t end t hatt he t r i al co urter red by g ran ti n g su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ag a i n st th e i r bre a c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty cl ai m . M et Li fe m ove d for s um m ar

y j udgm enton t he bas i s t hatt here i s no evi dence t hati thad a f i duci ar y duty t o t he R i ces. W h e re th e u n d e rl y i n g fac ts a re u n d i sp u ted , d e term i n a ti o n o f t h e ex i ste nce and brea ch of a f i duc i ar y duty i s a que st i on of l aw t hati s exc l us i vel y w i t hi n t he p ro v i n c e o f th e c o u rt. M eyer v. C at hey , 1 6 7 S .W .3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). A s w e h ave ex pl ai ned , D ue t o i ts e xt raordi nary nat ure, t he l aw does notrecogn i ze a fi d u c i a ry relati o n sh i p l i g h tl y . T h e refo re, w h e th e r s u c h a d u ty e x i sts depen ds on t he ci rcum st ances. Fi duc i a ry dut i es m ay ar i se from for m al and i nfor m al re l a ti o n s h i p s a n d m a y b e c re a te d b y c o n tra c t. . . . A p e rs o n is ju s t if ie d in p la c in g c o n f id e n c e in t h e b e lie f t h a ta n o t h e r

p a rt y w ill38

ac ti n hi s bes ti nt erest o nl y w here h e i s ac cus t om ed t o be i ng g u i d e d b y th e j u d g m e n t o r a d v ic e o f t h e o th e r p a rty a n d th e re exi st s a l ong associ at i on i n a busi ness re l a ti o n sh i p as w el l as p e rs o n a l fri e n d s h i p . Thus , t he rel at i ons hi p m us tex i stpr i or t o a nd a p a rt fro m th e a g re e m e n t th a t i s th e b a s i s o f th e s u i t. C ot t en v. W ea th e rfo rd Bancshares, I nc. , 187 S
. W
. 3d 687, 698 (Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d a n d fo o tn o te s o m i tte d ); see M eyer , 16 7 S
. W
. 3d at33 1 (e x pl ai ni ng t hatt here m ustbe a “s peci al rel a t i on s hi p of t r us t a nd c on f i de nc e ” t o c re a t e a f i du c i a r y re l a t i on s hi p i n an o rd i n a ry b u s i n e s s t ra n s a c ti o n ). A n in s u re r d o e s n o t g e n e ra l l y h a v e a fi d u c i a ry duty t ow ard i t s i ns ured. See E. R
. D upu i s C oncret e C o. v. Penn M ut . Li fe I ns. C o. , 137 S
. W
. 3d 311, 318 (Tex. A pp. — Beau m ont20 0 4 , n o pet . ) (ci t i ng W ayn e Duddl es t en, I nc. v. H i ghl and I ns . Co. , 110 S
. W
. 3d 85, 96 (Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d )); G ar r i so n Cont rac t ors, I nc. v. Li bert y M ut . I ns . Co. , 9 2 7 S .W .2 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 1 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 6 ), a ff’d , 9 6 6 S .W .2 d 4 8 2 (1 9 9 8 ); cf
. Ber r y v. Fi rst N a t’ l B ank of O l ney , 894 S. W
. 2d 558 , 560 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no w r i t) ( hol di ng t hat a ban k di d not aut om at i ca l l y ha ve a fi duc i ar y rel at i ons hi p w i t h i t s cus t om ers an d t hatt he c u s to m e rs t h e re fo re h a d th e b u rd e n to re s p o n d to th e b a n k ’s s u m m a ry j udg m e ntm ot i on b y prov i di ng e vi de nc e o f s pe c i f i c fa c t s s ho w i ng a speci al re l a ti o n s h i p ).39

G l enda sai d i n her

af f i davi t , “I have been a cust om er of M et Li fe on several occ as i ons t hrougho utm y l i fe . . . . ” The Ri ce s ha ve n otdi rec t ed us t o a ny ot her ev i den ce co nce r ni ng t hei r rel ati ons hi p w i t h M et Li fe a partfrom t he coverage ati ssue i n t hi s case. W e hol d th a t G l enda’ s sol e st at em enti n her af f i dav i tdoe s notco ns t i t ut e m ore a s ci nt i l l a o f ev i den ce t hatthe R i ce s had a s p e c i a l re la ti o n s h i p o f c o n fi d e n c e a n d tru s t w i th M e tL i fe to c re a te a fi d u c i a ry re l a ti o n s h i p . See Cr i m Tr uck & Trac t or C o. v. N avi st ar I nt ’ l Trans p. Cor p. , 823 S. W
. 2d 591, 595 (Tex. 199 2 ) (exp l ai ni ng t hat“ [ n] ei t her i s t he fac tt hatt he rel at i onshi p has been a co rdi al o ne, o f l ong durat i on, evi dence of a conf i denti al re l a ti o n s h i p ” ), su perse ded by st at ut e o n ot her grounds as s t at ed i n Suba r u of A m . , I nc. v. D avi d M cD avi d N i ssan, I nc. , 8 4 S .W .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 5
– 2 6 (T e x .2 0 0 2 ). Th us, w e hol d t hatt he t r i al cour tproper l y grant ed sum m ar y j udg m entagai nst th e R i c e s’ b rea c h o f fi d u c i a ry d u ty c l a i m , a n d w e o v e rr u l e th e i r se v e n th p o i n t. F ra u d b y n o n d i s c l o s u re I n t hei r ei ght h poi nt , t he Ri ce s con t end t hatt he t r i al co urter red by grant i ng sum m ar

y j udg m ent agai nst t hei r f raud by nond i scl osure cl ai m . They al l ege d i n t hei r

am end ed pe t i t i on t hatM et Li fe h ad a d ut y t o di sc l os e t he term i n a ti o n o f La rr

y ’s co v e rag e b u t did n o t. F ra u d b y n o n d i s c l o s u re i s a s u b c a te g o ry o f fra u d
. Schl um berger Tec h. C or p. v. Sw ans on , 9 5 9 S .W .2 d 1 7 1 , 1 8 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ). “A s a g e n e ra l ru l e , aW e h a ve h e l d t ha ta d uty t o di s c l os e m a y a r i s e from c i rc um s t a nces 20 unrel at ed t o a confi denti al or f i duci ar y rel at i onshi p bet w een t he p a rt i e s. Se e Ci t i z e ns Nat ’ l Ba nk v . Al l e n Ra e I nv s . , I nc. , 1 4 2 S
. W
. 3d 459, 477 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2004, no p et . ) (op. on reh’ g)
. H ow eve r , i ss ues t hatare n ot pres ent ed t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt“ s h a l l n o tb e c o n s i d e re d o n a p p e a l a s g ro u n d s for re v e rs a l .” T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); s e e Hea d v. U. S. I ns pe c t DFW , I nc. , 159 S .W .3 d 7 3 1 , 7 4 0 n .6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.). 40 fai l u re to d i sc l o se i n fo rm a ti o n d o e s n o t co n sti tu te fra u d u n l e ss th e re i s a d u ty t o d i s c l o s e t h e i n fo r m a t i o n . . . . W h e t h e r s u c h a d u t y e x i s t s i s a que st i on of l aw . ” B ra d fo rd , 4 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 5 . Th e Ri ces ass ert ed i n t he t r i al cour tt hatM et Li fe had a duty t o di scl ose t h e t e r m in a t io n o f

L a r r y ’s c o v e ra g e u n d e r

t h e c e r t i f ic a t e o f

in s u ra n c e s o le ly because t he R i ces al l egedl y had a confi denti al rel at i onshi p w i t h M e tLi fe. 20 S ee W or l d H el p v. Lei sure Li festyl es, I nc. , 977 S
. W
. 2d 662, 670 (Tex. A pp. — For tW or t h 1 99 8, pet . deni ed) (expl ai ni ng t hata “party h as an a ffir m a ti v e d u ty to d i s c l o s e w h e re th e re i s a c o n fi d e n ti a l o r fi d u c i a ry rel at i onshi p”)
. F o r th e sam e reasons as t hose di scussed above, w e hol d t hat t he evi dence present ed by t he R i ces i s i nsuff i ci entt o rai se a m at er i al fact di sput e about a conf i denti al rel at i onshi p bet w een t he R i ces and M et Li fe. T h e refore, w e h ol d tha tt he t r i al co urtdi d n ot er r by granti ng M etLi fe ’s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on on t he Ri ce s’ fraud by nondi sc l os ure c l ai m , an d w e o v e rru l e th e R i c e s ’ e i g h th p o i n t.M e t L ife m o v e d fo r s u m m a r

y ju d g m e n to n t h e g ro u n d t h a tit s a c t io n s d id 21 n o t ca u se d a m a g e s g e n e ral l y ; M e tLi fe d i d n o t as se rttha t t h e R i c e s h a d to presentevi dence of a par t i cul ar am oun tof

dam ages. 41 D am ages I n t hei r ni nt h poi nt , t he R i ces argue t hatthe t r i al cour ti m proper l y grant ed M et Li fe’s s um m ar

y j udgm entm ot i on on t he ground t hatt hey di d notpres ent any evi dence of dam ages. The R i ces pl ed t hatthey w ere en t i t l ed t o recover 21 th e foll o w i n g d a m a g e s: (1 ) “[l ]os s of co v e rag e u n d e r t h e p o l i c y am o u n ti n g to $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,” (2 ) “[l]o s s o f o p p o rtu n i ty to o b ta i n a ffo rd a b l e a l te rn a ti v e c o v e ra g e ,” (3 ) “[l]o s s o f p re m i u m s p a i d to [M e tL i fe ],” a n d (4 ) “m e n ta l a n g u i s h d a m a g e s .” W e have hel d t hatt he evi dence rai ses a genu i ne facti ssue aboutw het her t he par t i es ent ered i n to a cont racti n M ay 20 03 for Lar r y’ s coverage. A ccordi ngl y, w e hol d t hatt here i s a genui ne facti ssue aboutw het her t he R i ces lo s t t h e v a lu e o f t h a t c o v e ra g e if M e t L ife w ro n g fu lly c a n c e le d it , a n d w e s u s t a in th e R i c e s ’ n i n th p o i n t to th a t e x te n t. Th e R i ces have not respond ed t o M et Li fe’ s content i on t hatt hey present ed no e vi den ce of

m ent al an gu i sh da m age s. Al so , t he Ri ce s adm i tt hatt he prem i um s pai d for

Lar r y’ s cov erage have bee n refunde d. Thus , w e o ver r ul e t he R i c e s’ ni nt h poi ntt o t he ext entt hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s order precl udes t hose d a m a g e th e o ri e s . See Hai re v . N at han W at so n Co. , 221 S. W
. 3d 293, 30242

(T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rt h 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ) (affi rm i n g th e tr i a l c o u rt ’s d e c i sion to g ra n t s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t a s to c l a i m s th a t w e re n o t c h a l l e n g e d o n a p p e a l ). H ow ever , w e concl ude t hatt he f i nal st at em enti n G l enda’ s af f i davi t(t hat bec aus e o f

M et Li fe’ s ac t i ons and t he st at e of Lar r y’ s hea l t h, t he Ri ce s cou l d not obtai n al t er nat i ve coverage for hi m ) com pr i ses s om e evi dence o f t he R i ces’ re m a i n i n g d a m a g e th e o ry — l o s s o f th e “ o p p o rtu n i ty to o b ta i n a ffo rd a b le a lt e r n a t iv e c o v e ra g e .” T h u s , w e h o l d t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtc o u ld n o tp ro p e r ly grants um m ar

y j udgm enton t hatground. F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e s u s t a in t h e R ic e s ’ n in t h p o in tt o t h e e x t e n t t h a tit re g a rd s d a m a g e s re la t e d t o t h e lo s s o f t h e ir c o v e ra g e a n d t h e lo s s o f t h e ir o p p o rt u n i ty to o b tai n affo rda b l e alt e rna ti v e co v e rag e . W e o v e rr u l e the i r ni n th p o i n t to th e d e g re e th a t i t re l a te s to d a m a g e s fo r m e n ta l a n g u i s h o r th e re tu rn of prem i um paym ent s. Th e Tr i al C our t ’ s D eni al of Th e Ri ces’ M ot i on for N ew Tr i al I n t hei r t ent h poi nt , t he Ri ce s con t end t hatt he t r i al co urter red by d eny i ng t hei r m ot i on for

new t r i al based on new l y di scovered evi dence t hatM et Li fe had d e d u c t e d p re m iu m s fro m G le n d a ’s c a s h fu n d a c c o u n tra t h e r t h a n c o r re c t ly ret ur ni ng t hem
. W het her t o granta new t r i al because of new l y di scovered e v i d e n c e “ i s w i th in t h e d i s c re ti o n o f th e tri a l c o u rt. T o d e te rm i n e w h e th e r a t r i al cour tabused i t s di scret i on, w e m ustdeci de w het her t he t r i al cour tact edThe c as h f und acc ount
— l abe l ed by M et Li fe a s t he “Accum ul at i on 22 Fund ”— i ncl ude s m one y from prem i um pa ym ent s i n e xce ss of t he cos tof

t he i n su ran c e . G l e n d a sw o re i n an affi d a v i t, T h e c a s h -f u n d a c c o u n tw a s fu n d e d w i t h m o n e y [s h e ] h a d p a id in t o c ove r

fut ure p rem i um s, an d w as notat al l rel at ed t o pr i or prem i um s [ she] had pai d. I t. . . b e cam e obvi ous t o m e t hat M et Li fe had ta k e n m y ow n m oney . . . and senti tt o m e t o m ake 43 w i t houtreferenc e t o a ny g ui di ng r ul es or pr i nci pl es ; i n ot her

w ords , w het her

t he actw as ar bi t ra ry o r unreas onab l e. ” H ut son v. Tr i
- C oun t y Props. , LLC , 240 S .W .3 d 4 8 4 , 4 9 0
– 9 1 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (f o o tn o te om i t t ed)
. Th e p art y w ho seeks a new t r i al on t he groun d of new l y di scovered evi dence m ustsho w : ( 1) the evi dence has co m e to l i ght aft er tr i al , ( 2) i tw as notow i ng t o w antof due di l i gen ce t hatt he evi den ce di d notco m e t o l i ght sooner , ( 3) t he new evi dence i s notcum ul at i ve, and ( 4) t he evi denc e is so m a te ri a l th a t i t w o u l d l ik e ly p ro d u c e a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i f a n e w tri a l w e re g ra n te d
. Id
. a t491. I n t hei r m ot i on for

new t r i al , t he R i ces conceded t hatbefore M et Li fe f i l ed i t s m ot i on for

s um m ar

y j udgm ent , i t s cou ns el ha d gi ven t hem $ 2 , 1 5 2
. 17 for t he appare ntret ur n of t he prem i um s (and si x percenti nt erest) t hatt hey had pai d for Lar r y’ s cov erage si nce G l enda’ s ret i rem ent . Bu tthe R i ces al l eged t hat M et Li fe had w rongful l y rem ove d t he m one y from G l end a’ s ca sh fund a cc ount i ns t e a d o f

a c t u a l l y re fu n d i n g i t . M e t L i fe f i l e d a re s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n for 22m e b e l i e v e th a t th e y h a d a c tu a l l y re fu n d e d th e p re m i u m s . . . .

. . . .

. . . I n shor t , I had t o pay M et Li fe for l i fe i n su rance t hat M et Li fe s ays ne ver

ex i st ed, an d t hen I ha d t o pa y m ys el f for t he refund of

m y prem i um s. 44 new t r i al , t he t r i al co urthel d an evi den t i ar y he ar i ng, M et Li fe fi l ed a su ppl em ent al res pons e, an d t he t r i al co urtde ni ed t he m ot i on. M e tLi fe’s s u p p l e m e n tal res p o n se es tab l i sh e s t h a t t h e p rem i u m p a y m e n ts h a d n o t b e e n p ro p e rl y re fu n d e d to th e R i c e s a t th e ti m e o f th e tri a l c o u rt’s s u m m a r y ju d g m e n td e c is io n . H o w e v e r , t h e re s p o n s e s h o w s t h a ta s o f J u ly 200 9, G l end a’ s ca sh fund a cc ountha d be en ful l y and cor rec t l y repl eni sh ed by M e tLi fe to i ts p re-w i th d raw a l am o u n t. T h e R i c e s a rg u e t h a t t h e i mp ro p e r re fu n d t h a t h a d o c c u r re d a tt h e t i me t hatM et Li fe’ s su m m ar y j udgm ent m ot i on w as f i l ed “c aus ed [ t he Ri ce s] t o not def end
. . . t he ca us e o f ac t i on M oney H ad and R ecei ved , an d a m ount ed t o a f raud on t he cour t . ” They con t end t hata di f ferentresul tw oul d occur because t he t r i al cour t“w oul d be abl e t o j udg e t he case w i t hou t consi der i ng t he fal se a f f id a v it s ” o f

M e t L ife t h a ts t a t e d t h a tt h e p re m iu m s h a d b e e n p ro p e r ly refunde d.45

W e cannot agree w i t h t he R i ces’ assert i on t hatt hei r new l y di scovered evi den ce i s so m at er i al t hati tw oul d l i ke l y produc e a di f ferent res ul t . A s t o t he R i c e s ’ m o n e y h a d a n d re c e i v e d c la im , w h i c h i s b a s e d s o l e l y o n th e n o n re tu rn of t he prem i um paym ent s for Lar r y’ s coverage, t he evi dence est abl i sh e d t hat att he t i m e t he t r i a l c o u rtdeni ed t he R i ces’ m ot i on for new t r i al , t hose pay m ent s had be en cor rec t l y refunde d t o t hem
. Thus , t he Ri ce s w oul d notbe a b l e to o b ta i n a d i ffe re n t re s u l t o n th a t c l a i m . Se e E v e re t tv . T K- Ta i t o , L
. L
. C. , 178 S. W
. 3d 844, 860 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2005, no pet . ) ( “M one y ha d a nd recei ved i s an equi t abl e act i on t hatm ay be m ai nt ai ned t o preventunj ust enr i chm entw hen one pe rso n obt ai ns m on ey, w hi ch i n e qui t y a nd go od c o n s c i e n c e b e l o n g s to a n o th e r.” ). S i m i l a rl y , a s to th e R i c e s ’ o th e r c l a i m s , i f th e tri a l c o u rt b a s e d a l l o r p a rt of i t s deci si on t o grantM e tLi fe’s s um m ar y j udg m entm ot i on on t he factt hat M et Li fe h ad cor rec t l y refunde d t he prem i um p aym ent s, i t s dec i si on w as not l i kel y t o chang e. By t he t i m e t he t r i al cour td eni ed t he R i ces’ m ot i on for new t r i al , t hose paym ent s had been cor rect l y refund ed. Fi nal l y, al t hou gh t he R i ces assertt hatM et Li fe per pet u a ted a fraud on t he cour t , M et Li fe’ s suppl em ent al re s p o n s e to th e R i c e s ’ m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l s h o w s th a t M e tL i fe ’s d e la y in cor rect l y refund i ng t he prem i um paym ent s w as caused by i nadvert entcom puter er rors.46

F o r t h e se rea so n s, w e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e th a t th e R i c e s a ttac h e d to t hei r m ot i on for

new t r i al i s notso m at er i al t ha t i tw oul d l i kel y produ ce a d if fe re n tre s u ltif

a n e w t r ia l w e re g ra n t e d a n d t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtt h e re fo re d id n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re t io n b y d e n y i n g th e m o ti o n . See Hut so n , 24 0 S
. W
. 3d at 4 9 0
– 9 1 . W e o v e rr u l e the R i c e s’ ten th p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v in g o v e r r u le d t h e R ic e s ’ f irs t , t h ird (in p a rt), s e v e n t h , e ig h t h , n in t h (in p a rt), an d ten th p o i n ts, w e a ffi rm th e tri a l c o u rt ’s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ord e r t o t he ext entt hati tgrant s M et Li fe’ s su m m ar y j udgm entm ot i on a s t o ( 1) t he Ri ce s’ brea ch of

co nt rac tcl ai m co nce r ni ng t hei r t heo r i es ab outt he brea ch of t he cer t i f i cat e of

i nsurance t hatcreat ed Lar r y’ s ori gi nal co verage, ( 2) the Ri ces’ cl ai m s for

brea ch of

f i duc i ar

y du t y a nd fraud by nondi sc l os ure, a nd (3 ) t he Ri ce s’ dam age t heo r i es of l os s of prem i um s and m en t al an gui sh
. H ow eve r , ha vi ng s us t ai ned t he Ri ce s’ s ec ond, t hi rd ( i n pa rt) , fourt h t hrough si xt h, an d ni nt h ( i n part) poi nt s, w e reve rse t he t r i al co urt ’ s order t o t he ext ent t hati tgrant s M et Li fe’ s sum m ar y j udg m ent m ot i on as t o ( 1) t he R i ces’ breach o f co n tra c t cl a i m a s l i m i ted to th e i r th e o ry a b o u t th e b rea c h o f a n e w , se p a rate agree m ent for La r r

y’ s cov erage beg i nni ng i n M ay 200 3, ( 2) t he Ri ce s’ ba d fai t h, prom i ssor

y est opp el , D TP A , and i nsurance code cl ai m s, and ( 3) t he R i ces’ d a m a g e the o ri e s re g a rding the i r l o ss o f co v e rag e an d l o ss o f o p p o rt u n i ty to47

obtai n al t er nat e coverage. A s l i m i t ed t o t he por t i ons of t he t r i al cour t ’ s order t hatw e reverse, w e rem and t hi s case for fur t her proceedi ngs.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON CHI E F J UST I CE PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and G A RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2010