### NUM BER 13-07- 381- 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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

RA M ON A ND A NIT A

GA RC IA , A pp ellan ts,

v.
ST A TE F A RM L LOY DS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas
.



## C ON C U R R I N G OP I N I ON

Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

Co nc urrin g Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z I agree tha t Stat e Farm’s no -ev iden ce mo tion f or sum ma ry judgmen t is leg ally

insuf f icient be cause it fa ils to sta te specif ically which e lem ent s o f

t he Garcias’ claims areSee T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 1 6 6 a (i); C al l aghan R anch, Lt d. v. Ki l l am , 5 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 3 ( T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n io 1 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

S e e H a ml e t t

v

. H o l c o mb , 6 9 S .W .3 d 8 1 6 , 8 1 9 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.). 2

2 bei ng ch all eng ed. I furth er ag re e tha t t he motio n i s ther efore t re ated as a tr adi ti onal 1

moti on for summar

y jud g ment. How ev er , in re v iew ing the mot ion as a t ra dit ion al moti on,

2

I w oul d hol d th a t it is l eg all y i nsuffici ent a s a matte r of law bec ause the g ro unds for

summar y j udg ment ar e not ex pr ess ly pr esent ed i n the m oti on. Acc or din g ly , I co ncur i n the jud g ment, but for

di ff er ent r eason s.
Sufficienc y

of State Farm’ s Motion

In i ts moti on, S tate Far m ar g ued onl y one non- mold- re lat ed “ g ro und,” as foll ow s:
Add itiona lly , the re is no evidence tha t the a mo unt p aid by State Farm
w as insuf

f icient to repa ir the w ate r dam age. Th e Garcias ha v e repa ired the ir home, y et t her e i s n o ev ide nce the cos t of r epai rs ex ceede d the $26, 779.42 Stat e F ar m pai d. The majo ri ty

addr ess es the a rg ument t hat S tate Far m makes i n i ts appel lat e
br ief—t hat b ased on a spec ific pr ov is ion i n the poli cy , State Far m’s l iab il it y i s l imi ted t o the

amounts the Gar ci as “a ctu all y and neces sar il y spent ” to re pai r the d amag e to thei r home. The major it y

finds the pr ov is ion Sta te F ar m r eli es on to be i nappl ic abl e, an d thu s

conc lud es that the mot ion w as “b ased on a flaw ed pr emis e.”

In Mc Con nel

l v. Souths ide ISD , t he s upr eme co urt hel d:

Con si ste nt w it h the pr eci se lan g uag e of Ru le 166a( c)
, w e hol d that a moti on f or sum ma ry judgme nt must i tself expressly prese nt th e grounds u pon w hich it is made . A mot ion m ust stand or f all on the g roun ds expr ess ly pr esent ed in the m oti

on

. In de ter mini ng w hether g ro unds a re e x pr ess ly pr esent ed, re li ance maynot be pl aced on br iefs or su mmary

j udg ment ev ide nce.

. . . .McC on ne l l v

. So ut hs i de I SD , 8 5 8 S .W .2 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 1 -4 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 3 ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 3

R ent er

i a v. Tr evi no , 79 S. W

. 3d 2 40, 242 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 200 2 , n o p e t.)

. 4

S e e P ro v i d e n t L i fe & A c c i d e n t I n s . C o . v . K n o tt , 1 2 8 S .W .3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 -1 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ). 5

Lear
, Si gl er , I nc. v. Per ez , 81 9 S

. W

. 2d 47 0, 47 1 (T ex

. 19 91 ). 6

3 Th e s e r u l e s a l s o p er mi t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r a b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f a moti on for summar

y j udg ment as g uid ance in maki ng i ts deter minat ion
w hether the summar

y j udg ment ev ide nce demo n strat es that the mov ing p a rt y is “ ent itled to judgmen t,” see T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 16 6a ( c )
, bu t not in det ermin ing w het her sum ma ry judgmen t gr oun ds an d issues are ex pressly pr esent ed.

. . . . Ev en i f th e n on- mov ant fai ls to ex cept or r espon d, i f the g ro unds for sum ma ry

judgmen t are not e x pressly prese nte d in the mot ion f or sum ma ry ju d gm e n t it s e lf
, t h e m o t io n is le ga ll y in s u f f ic ie n t a s a m a t t e r o f

la w. 3

To re cov er under a br each of c ontr act caus e of act ion , t he Ga rc ias w er e r eq uir ed

to s how : ( 1) the ex is tenc e of a v ali d c ontr act , ( 2) that they per formed or

tend er ed

per formance, ( 3 ) th a t State F ar m br eache d the co ntr act , and ( 4) that they su sta ine d damag es as a r esul t of Sta te F ar m’s br each. 4

To be ent it led to summar y j udg ment, Stat e Far m w as re q uir ed to show that it w as
ent itled to judgmen t as a ma tter of la w a nd tha t no genu ine issue of mat erial f act exists. 5

Stat e F ar m w as re q uir ed to di spr ov e, as a mat ter of law , one of

the ess enti al el ements of

each of the Ga rc ias ’ caus es of acti on. 6

Her e, t he maj or it y

i mpli ci tl y co nst ru es Stat e Far m’s moti on as ch all eng ing ei ther the

“breach ” eleme nt or “dam ages” elem ent of the Ga rcias’ claim. I conclud e tha t Stat e Farm

has faile d to ex pr ess ly

pr esent the g ro unds upon w hic h the moti on i s made i n the moti onS e e M c C o n n e ll , 8 5 8 S .W .2 d a t 3 4 1

. 7

S e e i d

. at 342

. 8

4 it s e lf

. Ac c o rd in gl y, I wo u ld h o ld t h a t t h e m o t io n i s l e ga ll y i n s u f f ic ie n t a s a m a t t e r o f

la w. 7 8

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Con cur ri ng Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 30t h day

of Apr il , 200 9.