### NUM BER 13-07- 0038 1-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 NITA

GA RC IA , A pp ellan ts,

v. STA 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 nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N 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

Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s App ellant s, Ramo n an d Anit a G arcia, ap pea l from tw o orde rs g rantin g sum ma ry jud g ment i n fav or

of appel lee , St ate F ar m Ll oyds (“ Stat e F ar m”)

. By four is sues , t he Garcias con ten d the trial court e rred in overruling t heir obje ctions to State Farm’s sum ma ry jud g ment ev ide nce, su sta ini ng State F a rm’ s o bje cti ons to t hei r summar y j udg ment
ev ide nce, and i n g ra nti ng final su mmary j udg ment i n St ate F ar m’s fav or . W e aff ir m, i n par t,As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on, and t he par t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s, we wi l l onl y r eci t e t hose 1 fa c ts n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4.

W e n o te t h a t in t h e ir o r ig in a l p e tit io n , a p p e lla n ts s u e d s e v e r a l d e f e n d a n ts in d iv id u a lly, in c lu d in g J u lie 2 M e rk t, T h o m a s C . V a n D y k e , J r., D o u g C o o k , a n d A n d y ’ s R e fr i g e ra ti o n . T h e d o c k e t s h e e t re fle c ts th a t M e rk t, Van D y k e, Jr

. , and C ook wer e ser v ed wi t h ci t at i on , b ut does not r ef l ect t hat t hey answer ed. However , t he r ecor d cont ai ns appel l ant s’ Fi r st Am ended Pet i t i on, i n whi ch on l y St at e Far m Ll oy ds an d Andy ’ s R ef r i ger at i on a r e n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts . “ W h e n a p a r ty’s n a m e is o m itt e d f r o m a n a m e n d e d p le a d in g , h e is a s e ff e c tiv e ly di s m i s s ed as w he re a fo rm al orde r of di s m i s s al i s en t ere d.” R an do l ph v . J ac ks on W alke r , L

. L. P. , 29 S. W

. 3d 2 7 1 , 2 7 4 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ); see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 65. 2 and rev erse and remand, i n par t. 1 I. J URI S DI CT I ON As a prelim inary ma tter, we address several jurisdictional i ssues. First, on August 6, 20 07, t he c ler k o f this Cour t sent the Gar ci as’ counsel a “d efect l etter ,” noti ng thatthe trial court ’s M a rc h 2 7 , 200 7 sum ma ry judgmen t did no t app ear to b e a f inal ap pea lable orde r becau se it did no t dispo se of all parties; spe cif ically , the judgmen t did no t add ress caus es of acti on ag ain st Andy ’s Refr ig erati on, a defendant bel ow . The G ar ci as and St ate 2 Far m respon ded t hat a ll par ti es cons ide re d the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er to be a final order b e c a u s e A n d y’s R e f ri ge ra t io n wa s n e ve r s e rve d

. A lt h o u gh t h e G a rc ia s a t t e m p t e d t o se rve Andy ’s R efri g erati on i n 2004, se rv ic e w as not e ff ect ed. It is undi sput ed th at t here w ere no further att empts at s er

v ic e. A p p e ll a t e co u rt s a re o b li ga t e d t o re vie w sua sponte i ss ues a f f ect ing j ur is dicti on. M. O. Den tal

Lab v. Rap e , 139 S.W .3d 6 71, 6 73 ( Tex . 200 4)

. W e e xa m in e t he e ntire
re cord t o det er mine w hether an o rd er

di spos es of all pendi ng cl aims and par ti es. Lehm ann v

. Har -C on C or

p. , 39 S.W .3d 1 91, 2 05- 06 ( Tex . 200 1)

. In s uppor

t of thei r arg ument, the p arti es ci te t he pr inc ipl e that a jud g ment maybe final , ev en th oug h i t doe s n ot di spos e of al l par ti es named i n the peti ti on, if the remaini ng party w as ne v er serv ed w ith citation and did not f ile an answ er, and noth ing i n the record3

ind ic ates thatthe pla int iff ev er ex pect ed to obta in ser v ic e upon the remaini ng par ty

. See Youngsto w

n S h eet &T

ube C o. v

. Pe nn , 363 S.W .2d 2 30, 2 32 ( Tex . 196 2) ( desc ri bin g
w hen fail ure to obtain s er v ic e on defendant may be t re ated as a nons uitfor p ur poses of deter mini ng final ity

of jud g ment) ; M. O. Den tal Lab. , 139 S.W .3d a t 674 -7 5 (h o ld ing that deci si on i n Penn surv iv es Lehm ann ). W e ag re e. Here, al thoug h Andy ’s R efri g erati on w as nev er se rv ed, t here i s n othi ng i n the re cord to s ug g estthatthe Garci as ev er ex pect ed to do so . “[A] judgmen t is fina l fo r purpose s of a p p e al w hen (1) the judgme nt expressly dis poses of some, but n ot al l defendants, (2) the onl y remain ing defendants hav e not been
ser v ed or ans w ered, a nd ( 3) noth ing in the re cord ind ic ates that the p lai nti ff ev er ex pect ed to obt ain serv ice on the unse rv ed d efend ant s.” Sondock v . Har ri s C ounty Appr ais al Di st. , 2 3 1 S. W .3d 6 5, 67 n.1 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 20 0 7 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Penn , 363 S.W .2d at 232; M. O. Den tal Lab. , 139 S.W .3d at 674-75 ). W e conclu de that th e sum ma ry jud g ment i s fin al for pur poses of appeal

. See i d. Seco nd, S tate Far m has filed a mot ion to dis mis s t his appeal for w ant o f jur is dicti on. Stat e F ar m arg ues that becau se the G ar ci as’ m oti on for newtr ial w as filed more tha n thi rty day s a fter s ummary

j udg ment w as g ra nted, the moti on w as unti mely and therefore, the noti ce of appeal w as unti mely

. The Garcias c o ntend that thei r moti on for new tr ial w as time ly f iled un der the “mailbo x rule.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. Sta te Farm con t end s thatit
w as not. The tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment w as si g ned on Ma rc h 27, 2 007; therefore, a moti on for new tr ial w as due on or before Apr il 26, 2007. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329 b. In the ir respo nse to Sta te Farm’s m otion , the Garcias assert th at th ey ma iled the ir moti on for new

tr ial on A pr il 20, 2007, si x day s b efore t he dead li ne. Theyco ntend the4

moti on for new

tr ial w as pla ced in an env elo pe cor re ctl y address ed to the c ler k, sta mped f irs t- cla ss Un it e d St a te s p o st a ge o n Ap ril 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 by a c o m p u t e r i ze d p re -p a id po st a ge machi ne, and mailed throug h the U nit ed St ates Pos tal Ser v ic e on that date. The mot ion for new tri al w as rec eiv ed and file- sta mped bythe Hi dal g o C ounty D is tr ic t C ler k’ s o ff ic e on Ma y 4, 2007. The Garci as filed a no ti ce of appeal on June 11, 2007. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26. 1(a) (prov iding notice of app eal m ust be f il e d wi t h in thirty days aft er judgme nt is si g ned, or

w it hin ni nety

day s i f anypar

ty fil es a moti on for new

tr ial ). T he quest ion be fore us is w het her the Garcias perfecte d the ir appea l in reliance upon t he “ mail box

r ule .” R ule 5 prov ide s, in per ti nent par

t t hat if any docum entis sentt o the p rope r clerk by f irst-class U nited State s mail in an env elo pe or w ra pper proper ly address ed and sta mped and is depos it ed in the mai l on or before the lastdayfor f il ing same, the sa me, i f rec eiv ed by the c ler k n ot more tha n ten day s t ardil y , s hal l be fil ed by the cle rk

and be deemed fil ed i n ti me. A leg ibl e postmar k aff ix ed by the Uni ted S tates Pos tal Se rvice sh a ll b e pri m a fa cie evid e n ce of th e da te of

m a ili n g. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. Tex as cour ts hav e hel d tha t, “[ i] n the abs ence of a proper pos tmar k o r cer t i fi c a t e o f ma i l i n g , a n a t t o r n e y ’ s u n c o n t ro v e rt e d a ffi d a v i t ma y b e e v i d e n c e o f t h e dat e of mailing.” Lofto n v

. Al ls tate Ins . C o. , 895 S.W .2d 6 93, 6 93- 94 ( Tex . 199 5)

. In s uppor

t of thei r arg ument t hat t hey ti mely fil ed their

moti on for new

tr ial , t he Garci as produce d a c opy of the e nv elo pe, c or re ctl y address ed to the dis tr ic t c ler k’ s o ff ic e, a n d st a m p e d “Un i te d St a te s P o st a ge, ” da te d Ap ril 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e Ga rci a s a ck n o wled ge th a t t h e Un it e d St a te s P o st a ge s ta m p w a s a f f ixed b y a co m p u te rize d ren te d po st a ge machi ne atthei r couns el’ s o ff ic e. Stat e Far m arg ues that the sta mp on t he env elo pe i s n ot a U nit ed St ates Pos tal Ser v ic e pos tmar k and does not establ is h actual mai li ng on A pr il 20, 2007. Thus, ac cordin g to Stat e F ar m, the Apr il 20, 2007 po stmar k d oes not c onst it ute pr ima facie ev ide nce of mail ing

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5.5

W e ne ed n ot de cide w het her the April 20, 20 07 p o s t m a rk con stitute s prima facie
ev ide nce of mail ing bec ause the G ar ci as als o produce d tw o aff ida v it s. The first aff ida v it , from Shann on Loy d, s tates thatsh e c omplet ed th e moti on for newtri al on Apri l 20, 2 007, used her off ic e’s U nit ed St ates Pos tal Ser v ic e mach ine to postmar k t he env elo pe, a nd
m a il e d it o n t h a t d a t e . A s e c o n d a f f id a vit , f ro m A n ge li c a Co ro n a d o , Ms

. L o yd ’s se c re t a ry, sta tes th at s he and Ms . Loy d us ed th e off ic e pos tal machi ne to pos tmar k t he env elo pe cont aining the mot ion for new trial on April 20, 2 007 and ma iled it on th at da te. Sta te Farm off ered no ev ide nce cont ro v erti ng ei ther aff ida v it

. W e c oncl ude t he tw o aff ida v it s c o n sti tute prima facie evidence thatthe m otion for new trial w as p la ced in th e United State s mail, pos ta g e pre- pai d, on Apr il 20, 2007. See Lo fton , 895 S.W .2d a t 693 -9 4; Alvarez v. Thom as , 172 S.W .3d 2 98, 3 02- 03 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2005, no pet.) ( noti ng ce rt ific ate of ser v ic e and attor ney ’s aff ida v itare bot h pr ima facie ev ide nce of date of mai li ng ). Stat e F ar m al so cont ends that ev en i f the Garci as est abl is h tha t t hey mai led the moti on for new

tr ial on A pr il 20, 2007, “t he mai lbo x r ule ’s req uirements w ere notmet a s t he moti on w as not recei v ed by the Cou rt unti l Ma y

4, 2007, more than ten d ay s a fter mai li ng .” Acc ordin g to Stat e F ar m, unl ik e T ex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 9.2( b) , w hic h prov ide s tha t a docu me nt i s time ly if received w ithin “ ten days af ter the f iling dea dline, ” see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.2 (b), Te x as Rule of Civ il Procedu re 5 provides tha t a docu me nt i s time ly f iled if it is received by the clerk “not mo re than ten da y s tardily .” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. Sta te Farm cites Guev

ar a v . Nolo t in suppo rt of

its position th at th e ma ilbox rule’s
re q uirements w ere notmet b ecaus e the moti on for new tr ia l was n o t rec eiv ed w it hin ten day s o f mail ing

. See G uevar a v . Nolo t , N o. 05 -0 5–1238- CV , 2 0 0 6 W L 139128 7, at*2 (T e x . Ap p.–D all as Ma y 23, 2006, no pet .) ( mem. op.)

. In Gue vara , t h e D a l l a s C ourt of6

Appeal s found a n appea l bond w as ti mely fil ed unde r Rul e 5 w hen t he ev ide nce show ed itw as mail ed and re cei v ed by the jus ti ce cour

t c lerk p rio r to t he due date. I d. at * 2. In doi ng so , t he cour

t noted that “ the record c ontai ns ev ide nce show ing the appeal bond w as delivered w ithin te n da y s of t he date of m ail

ing a n d wa s re ceiv ed and si g ned for by [t he clerk].” Id. at * 2 ( emphasi s a dded)

. W e no te , h o w ev er , t hat t he Guev ar a cour t w as not address ing w hether

R ule 5 re q uires rec eip t of a documentw it hin ten day s f ro m mail ing or
w it hin ten day s o f the fil ing deadl ine ; rather , t he c our t w as si mply

rej e ct in g an a rg ument that a cour

t cle rk ’s testi mony

that she did not reca ll recei v ing the appeal bond cons ti tuted
ev ide nce that itw as not recei v ed. Id. Thus, the cour t’ s c omment reg ardin g del iv er y of the appeal bond “w it hin ten day s o f mail ing ” w as dicta. The Garci as ci te Stok

es v. Aber

deen Ins. C o. , 917 S.W .2d 2 67, 2 68 ( Tex . 199 6) and W illiam s v. Schne iber, 1 48 S.W .3d 5 81, 5 85-8 6 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 200 4, no pet. ), noti ng thati n findi ng doc uments timel y fil ed unde r the mai lbo x r ule , nei ther

co urt reli ed on
r e c e i p tw i t h i n t e n d a y s o f m ail ing

. In Stok

es , the supreme cour

t found a m o ti o n fo r new tr ial w as ti mely

fil ed w here it w as sentbyFederal Ex press to the cour t cle rk (recei v ed th e follo w ing day ) and mail ed the same day to the d is tr ic t j udg e. Stok es , 917 S.W .2d a t 267

. The cour t hel d i t w as not n eces sar y for t he c ler k t o recei v e the same pie ce of paper that the p a rt y m a il ed v ia Uni ted S tates mai l to be nefit from the mail box r ule

. Id. a t2 6 8 ( “ We
cons tr ue th e w ords ‘t he s ame’ in the r ule s t o mean an or ig ina l or any copy of the moti on suf f icient for f iling.” ). Si mil ar ly , i n Schn eib er

, the Fort W orth Court of Appe als held thatthe m ailbox rule
w as prop erly

in v oked if

the clerk time ly

receiv ed a copy of th e relevant plea ding, even if it
w as not t he one mail ed. Schn eib er , 148 S.W .3d at 585. I n Schn eib er , t he pl ain ti ff

mai led7

an appe al bond on Aug ust22, 2002 an d fax ed a copy on A ug ust27, 2002, w hic h w as
w it hin the presc ri bed ti me per iod

. Id. at 584. Al thoug h the cl er k d id not recei v e the appeal bond that w as plac ed in the mail, the fax ed copy w as re cei v ed. Id. at 584- 85. Rel y ing on Stok es , t he Schn eibe r cour

t hel d tha t t he appe ll ant i nv oked the mail box rul e bym ail ing the appeal bond on Aug ust22 a nd ens ur ing the cl er k recei v ed a fax ed copy on Aug ust 27. Id. at 58 6. W e con clude t hatn one of the case s cited directly address the q uest ion be fore us:
w hether the lan g uag e i n R ule 5 “n ot more than ten d ay s t ardil y ” re fers to t en day s from the date of mail ing or

ten day s from the deadl ine for f il ing

. The supreme co urt has st ated that as a genera l rule, app ellate courts sho uld no t dismiss an app eal for a proced ural def ect
w hen ever an arguable inte rpretat io n of the ap pellat e rules w ould preserve the ap pea l. Ver bur gt v . D or ner , 959 S.W .2d 6 15, 6 16 ( Tex . 199 7) ; see W arw ic k T o we rsCouncil v. Par k Warwick

, L.P. , 244 S.W .3d 838 , 839 (Te x . 2 0 08); Schnei ber , 148 S.W .3d a t 585 (ci ti n g Ver

bur gt , 959 S.W .2d at 616 -17). W e h a ve alread y

dete rmine d tha t the Garcias esta blished thatthey mailed their moti on for new

tr ial on A pr il 20, 2007. The re cord cont ain s e v ide nce that itw as re cei v ed by the cl er k’ s o ff ic e by

M ay 4, 2 0 0 7 —with in ten day s o f the Apr il 26, 2007 de adl ine

. Appl y ing a re asona ble inter pretati on th at preser v es the G ar ci as’ appeal , see Ver bur gt , 959 S.W .2d a t 616 , w e hol d tha t t he “n o t m o re than ten day s t ardil y ” re q uirement i n R ule 5
re fers to ten day s past the fili ng deadl ine re ferenc ed in the r ule ( “o n or before the l astday for fil ing sa me”)

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. W e therefore hol d that the G ar ci as’ moti on for new tr ial w as ti mely

fil ed. Acc ordin g ly , the deadl ine for fil ing the noti ce of appeal w as extended, and t his appeal i s p ro per ly before thi s C our

t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26. 1(a). W e overruleT he G ar ci as i ni t i al l y pl eaded v i ol at i ons o ff or m er T exas Revi sed Ci v i l St at ut es ar t i cl e 21

. 21, whi ch 3 was r epeal ed a nd co di f i ed wi t hout subst ant i v e change. See Act of M ay 10, 200 1, 77t h Le g. , R

. S. , ch. 290 , § 1, 200 1 T EX
. G EN
. L AW S 5 4 8 , 5 4 8 -5 1 , repealed a nd r ecodif i ed by Act of

M ay 22, 200 3, 78t h Le g . , R

. S. , ch. 1674 §§ 2 , 26, 200 3 T EX
. G EN
. L AW S 36 11 , 26 59 -61 (cu rr en t ve rs i o n s a t T EX
. I NS
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 5 41. 051, 541. 056 ( Ver non Pam phl et 2 008)

. T he p ar t i es’ br i ef s r ef er t o t he i nsur ance code, and so wi l l we. 8 Sta te Farm ’s motio n t o d is m is s f o r lack of jurisdiction. W e no w

turn to th e me rits of

this app eal. II. B A CKGRO UND Stat e F ar m is sued a homeow ners i nsurance pol icy , t he s tandard HO- B pol icy , t o the Garci as for th eir

home i n M cAl len , Texa s. T he Garc ias f il ed clai ms under thei r pol icy for
w ater and mold damag e on June 22, 2 002. After i nspecti ons w ere p e rfor med, on Dec ember

10, 2002, Stat e F ar m pai d the Garci as $26,779 .42. The l etter ac company ing the p ay ment i ndi cat ed th at t he pay ment w as for “ w ater damag e.” The Garci as filed suit agai nstSta te F ar m on O cto ber 4, 2004, all eg ing breach of cont ract, brea ch of

the du ty of

g ood faith a nd fair dea ling, v iolation s of the T exas Insuran ce Cod e, an d v iol ati ons of the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act

. See T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7

. 50 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ; T EX
. I NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 541. 151 ( Ver non Pa mphlet 200 8). The Garcias alleged claim s against Sta te Farm base d on its failure to pa y for mo ld 3 damag e and to full y

pay for t he w ater

damag e to thei r home. Stat e F ar m file d tw o moti ons for s ummary judg ment. T he f irst moti on pur por ted t o ra is e no- ev ide nce and t ra dit ion al g ro unds w it h respect t o St ate F ar m’s l iab il ity . See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66 a( c ) , ( i )

. S ta te F ar m a rg ue d th att he re w as n o c ov erag e for mo l d c l ai ms under the Tex as Supreme Cour t’ s deci si on i n Fei

ss v. Sta te F

ar mLloyds , 202 S. W .3d 7 44, 753 ( Tex . 200 6)

. Fur

ther more, Sta te F ar m arg ued t hat t here w as no ev idence that the amount i t had al re ady

pai d w as ins uff ic ien t t o make the re pai rs for w ater damag e to theT he t wo m ot i ons r ai sed num er ous i ssues, i n m any i nst ances wi t hout bei ng ent i r el y cl ear . T he v ague 4 a n d p i e c e m e a l n a tu re o f S ta te F a rm ’ s m o ti o n s f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t h a v e re s u l te d i n a n o p i n i o n th a t i s , t o a d e g re e , n e c e s s a ril y d i s jo i n te d

. 9 Garci as’ home. Ital so chal len g ed th e Garci as’ extra- cont ra ctu al cl aims , arg uin g that becau se there w as no c ov erag e for the G ar ci as’ cl aim for mold damag e, t here c oul d be no li abi li ty for e xtra- cont ra ctu al cl aims

. Fur ther more, it arg ued there w as no ev ide nce of any mis re present ati on by

Sta te F ar m, att achi ng depos it ion tes ti mony from t he Garci a s t o suppo rtthi s arg ument, and that there w as no ev ide nce that the G ar ci as had any co mplai nt
w it h how Sta te F ar m handl ed th eir cl aims , ex ceptthatSta te F ar m di d notpay enoug h. Fi nal ly , t he moti on arg ued t hat t he Ga rc ias w ere notenti tl ed to r e co ver ad dit ion al li v ing
ex pense s. The sec ond moti on w as a “ condi ti onal ” moti on—S tate Farm a rgued th at t he tr ial
cour t need onl y address the sec ond moti on i f the first w ere deni ed. This se cond moti on chal len g ed the Garci as’ all eg ed damag es for mental ang uis h, t re ble damag es under the Insu rance Code, and ex em plary dam ages. 4 The Garci as re spond ed and obj ect ed to Sta te F ar m’s su mmary j udg ment ev ide nce. The Garci as submi tted a repor t from thei r ex per

t, Frank Zamora, t hat esti mated cost s for
re pai r as $55,716 .35. The Garci as als o cl aimed they had to bo rrow

$20, 000, in addi ti on to t he amounta lre a d y p a id by Sta te F ar m, to cont inu e repai rs , butthey had ru n outof
mo ney before th e r e p airs w ere com plete d. Sta te Farm , in turn, objected to the Garcias’
summar y j udg ment ev ide nce. T he trial cou rt sustaine d Sta te Farm’s obje ctions, ov erruled th e Garcias’ objection s, and g rante d bo th m otion s for sum ma ry judgmen t w ithou t specif y ing the basis of

its r ulings. This appeal ens ued.10 III . S U M M A R Y J UDG M ENT S TA NDA RDS The tr ial courtgranted both of State Far m’s moti ons for s ummary j udg ment w it hout sta ti ng the g ro unds for i ts ru li ng s. U nder thes e c ircums tanc es, w e mustaff ir m the jud g ment i f anyof the g ro unds al leg ed in the moti ons w ere mer it or iou s. W . Invs., Inc. v. Ur ena , 162 S.W .3d 547 , 550 (Tex. 2005 ). The st andard of rev iew w e appl y

i s d eter mined by w hether the moti on w as broug ht on no- ev ide nce or tradi ti onal g ro unds. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) , ( i) ; see als o Or tega v. City Nat ’

l Bank , 97 S.W .3d 7 65, 7 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ( op. o n reh’ g ). An o -e vid e n c e su m m a ry j u d gm e n t is e qu iva le n tt o a p re t ri a l d ir e c t e d ve rd ic t , a n d we appl y the same l eg al suffici ency st andard on re v iew

. Ma ck T ru ck s, I n c. v. T

am ez , 206 S.W .3d 5 72, 5 82 ( Tex . 200 6) ; Or tega , 97 S.W .3d at 772. O nce an appropr iat e moti on for
no- ev ide nce summar

y j udg ment i s fil ed, t he burden of produc in g e vide nce is enti re ly on the n on- mov ant; the mov ant h as no burden t o attac h any ev ide nce to t he moti on. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(i). W e ma y not con sider any ev iden ce prese nte d by the mo va n tu n le s s it
creates a fact q uest ion

. Bi nur v. Ja cobo , 135 S.W .3d 6 46, 6 51 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Newkum et
v. Al len , 230 S.W .3d 518 , 521 (Tex. App. –Ea stland 200 7, no pet. ). T o de feata no-evidence mot io n f o r sum ma ry judgmen t, the non -movant m ust merel y produce a s ci nti ll a of probati v e ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact. Or tega , 97 S. W .3d at 772 . “Less than a scintilla of e v iden ce exists w hen t he evidence is ‘so w eak a s to do n o mo re than create a mere surmise or susp icion of a fact.’” Id. (q uoti ng Kindred v. Con/

Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 6 1, 63 ( Tex . 198 3) ). Mo re than a s ci nti ll a ex is ts
w hen the evidence “rises to a level tha t w ould ena ble reaso nab le and fair-mind ed p eop le to dif fer in their conclu sions.” Id. (ci ti n g Tr ansp. Ins . C o. v

. Mor iel , 8 7 9 S

. W

. 2 d 1 0 , 2 5 (T e x.11

1994) ). I n det e rm in in g whether the non- mov ant h as met i ts burden, w e rev iew the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e no n- m o va n t , crediting such evidence if
reaso nab le jurors could, a nd d isregarding con trar y e v i de nc e un l es s rea s on ab l e j urors could not. T am ez , 206 S.W .3d a t 582 ; City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 8 2 7 (T e x. 2005)

. W e rev iew the tr ial cour t’ s g ra nti ng of a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment de
novo . See P

ro vident Lif

e & Accide nt Ins. C o. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211 , 215 (Tex. 2003 ); Br anton v. W

ood , 100 S.W .3d 6 45, 6 46 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. W hen
re v iew ing a t ra dit ion al summar y j udg ment, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether the mov ant meti ts burd en to estab lish thatno ge n uine issue of mat erial fact exists and th at th e mo v antis enti tl ed to jud g ment as a matter of l aw . T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Po we r Co. v. Gr ant , 73 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 2) ; City of Hou sto n v. Clear Cre ek Basi

n Aut h. , 589 S.W .2d 6 71, 678 (Tex

. 1979)

. The mov ant bears the b urden of proof in a tradi ti onal moti on for s ummary

j udg ment, and al l doubts about the ex is tenc e of a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact are resol v ed ag ain st the mov ant. See S w. Elec. Power C o. , 7 3 S

. W. 3 d a t2 1 5

. W e take as t r ue a l l e v i de nc e fav orab l e to t he n on mo v an t, a nd w e i nd ul g e ev er y rea s on able inference and resol v e any doubt s in the n onmov ant’ s fav or . Vale nce Op eratin g Co. v. Dor sett , 164 S.W .3d 656 , 661 (Tex. 2005 ). W e w il l aff ir m a tradi ti onal summar y jud g ment onl y

i f the record es tabl is hes that the
mov ant h as conc lus iv ely p ro ved i ts defense as a mat ter of law or i f the mov ant h as neg ated at l eastone ess enti al ele ment of the pla int iff’s c ause of ac ti on. IHS Ceda rs Trea tmen t Ctr. of DeS oto, Tex., Inc . v . M ason , 143 S.W .3d 7 94, 7 98 ( Tex . 200 4) ; A m. Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll , 951 S.W .2d 4 20, 4 25 ( Tex . 199 7) ; Clear Creek Basin , 589 S.W .2d12

at 67 8. A matter is conc lus iv ely est abl is hed if re asona ble peopl e c oul d notdi ff er as to the
conc lus ion to be draw n from t he ev ide nce. City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d at 816. Onl y w hen the mov ant h as produce d s uff ic ien t evid e n ce to est abl is h i ts ri g ht t o s ummary j udg ment does t h e b u rd e n s h i ftt o t h e p l a i n t i ff t o c o me fo r w a rd w i t h c o mp e t e n tc o n t ro v erti ng ev ide nce ra is ing a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact w it h re g ard to t he el ement c hal len g ed by the d efendant. Rho ne- Poulenc, Inc . v . Steel , 997 S.W .2d 217, 223 (Te x. 1999) ; see Cen teq R ealty, Inc . v

. Si egler , 899 S.W .2d 1 95, 1 97 ( Tex . 199 5)

. W hen a party moves fo r summ aryjudgmen t und er both Rules 166 a(c) and 16 6a(i) of the Tex as Rul es of C iv il Procedu re , w e w il l firs t rev iew the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment und er the s tandard s of Rul e 166a( i)

. For d Motor C o. v . Ridg way , 1 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 0 (T e x. 2004)

. If the appel lan t fails to produce more than a sc int il la of ev ide nce under thatburden, then there i s n o need to an alyz e w hether appel lee ’s su mmary

j udg ment proof sati sfies the les s s tr ing ent R ule 166a( c) burden. Id. IV. S TA TE F A RM ’ S N O -E VI D ENC E M OT I ON By thei r fourth is sue, the Garci as arg ue th at t he tr ial co urt er ro neous ly g ra nted Stat e Far m’s no- ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. Before w e add re ss the meri ts of Stat e F ar m’s no- ev ide nce moti ons, how ev er , w e must first address the Garci as’ arg ument that the n o- ev ide nce moti ons did not proper ly ch all enge e le ments of thei r cl aims

. Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 166a( i) req uires that a n o -e vi dence moti on for
sum ma ry

judgmen t “state th e elem ent s as to w hich the re is no ev iden ce.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(i). The Garcias argue t h a t beca use St ate Farm’s mo tion d id notsatisf y this
r eq ui r em en t, th e en ti r e mo ti on mu s t be trea te d as a trad i ti on al mo ti on for sum ma ry jud g ment, w hic h w oul d pla ce the summar y jud g ment burden of proof on Sta te F ar m rather13

than on th e Garci as. See M ichael v. Dyke , 41 S.W .3d 7 46, 7 51- 52 (T ex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, no p et.)

. T he Ga rcias d id n o to bje ct in the trial cou rt to the suf f iciency of

the no -ev iden ce mo tion. T he courts of app eals are sp lit on w het her the suf f iciency of

a mo tion u nde r Rule 166a( i) may

be rais ed for

the firs t time o n appea l. Com par e Holl oway v . T ex. Elec. Uti

lity C o n s t r . , L td. , N o . 1 2-07 -004 27-CV, 2 009 W L 76 530 4, at*4 & n.2 (Tex. App. –T y ler Mar. 25, 2 009, no pet . h. ) (h old ing i ss ue may be rais ed for the first ti me on ap peal ); HelmCos.
v. Shady Cre ek Hou si

ng Par tner s, Ltd. , N o. 0 1 -0 5 -0 0 7 43, 2 007 W L 21301 86, a t * 6 n.7 (T e x. A pp. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] July 26, 200 7, pe t. de nied ) ( me m. op.) (sam e); B ea n v. Rey nolds Rea lt

y G ro up, Inc ., 192 S.W .3d 856, 859 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) (s ame); In r

e Es tate of S wanson , 130 S.W .3d 1 44, 1 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2003, no p et.) (o v er ru li ng pr ior

dec is ion i n Wa lto n v

. Ph i l l i p s P e t r o leumC o. , 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 8 (T e x. App.–E l Paso 2001, pet. denied) and hol din g that i ss ue may be rais ed for the first ti me on appeal ); and Cim ar

ro n H ydr ocar bons Cor

p. v . C a rpenter

, 1 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 5 6 0 , (T e x. App.–D all as 2004, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g i ss ue may be ra is ed for

f irst ti me on ap peal ); and Cuy ler v. M inn s , 60 S.W .3d 2 09, 2 12- 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t. ] 2 0 01, p et. deni ed) ( same) ; and C all aghan R anch Ltd. v. Ki ll am , 53 S.W .3 d 1 , 3 (Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2000, pet. deni ed) ( same) ; with Bar nes v. Sul

ak , N o . 0 3
- 0 1
- 0 0 1 5 9
- C V , 2 0 0 2 WL 1804912, at *9 n .4 ( Te x. Ap p .– Aust in Aug . 08, 2002, no p et.) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g obj ect ion m ustbe ra is ed in the tr ial co urt) ; W il li am s v . Ba nk One, Tex., N. A. , 15 S.W .3d 1 10, 1 17 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1999, no pet .) ( same) ; an d R ot h v . F FP Oper ati ng Par tner s, L.P. , 994 S.W .2d 190, 194-9 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1999, pet. deni ed) (s ame). W e hav e nev er been re q uired to dec ide thi s i ss ue, a lt houg h w e hav e menti oned14

iti n pr ior

dec is ion s. See, e.g., Los C ucos Mexica n C a fé , In c. v. Sanchez , 2 0 0 7 WL 1288820, at *5 n .5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 3, 2007, no pet .) ( mem. op.) ; Galvan v. Tex. Lo w Cost

Ins. Ag ency , No

. 1 3 -0 0 -5 9 3 -C V , 2 0 0 2 W L 3 4 2 4 9 7 6 0 , a t*3 n . 2 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 16, 2002, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Today , w e joi n the major ity of Tex as cour ts, w hic h hav e hel d that th e la ckof
s pe c i fi c i ty

o f a mo ti on for

n o- ev i de nc e s um ma r

y j ud g me ntma y

b e rai s ed for

t he fi rs t ti me on appe al. The s upreme co urt has hel d tha t a nonmov ant n eed notobj ectto th e l eg al
s uffi c i en c y

o f a trad i ti on al s um ma r y j ud g me nta nd ma y

rai s e th atarg um en t for t he fi rs t ti me on appe al. See McC onnel l v. SouthsideIndep. S ch. D is t. , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 2 (T e x. 199 3) (“Ev en if

the no n-mo v antfails to except or respon d , if the ground s for sum ma ry jud g ment are notex press ly present e d i n the moti on for summar y j udg ment i tse lf, t he
mo tion is legally

insuf f icient as a m atte r of law .”). W e see no reaso n w hy the rule shou ld be d if feren t w hen the m otion challen ged is f il ed u nde r Rule 166a (i) on n o-evidence g ro unds. See Cim ar

ro n H ydr ocar bons Cor

p. , 143 S.W .3d at 56 3

. Accordin gly , w e w ill
rev iew the Ga rcias’ a rgum entthatthe no -ev iden ce mo tion failed to state the spe cif ic ele ments of thei r cl aims thatSta te F ar m soug ht t o c hal len g e. W e agree w ith the G arcias w ith respe ct to Sta te Farm’s f irst m otion

. S tate Farm’s firs t moti on for summar y jud g ment s tated thati t w as bei ng broug ht un der both su bsecti ons (c ) and (i ) of Tex as Rul e of Civ il Proc edure 166a. How ev er , State Far m’s onl y arg uments
on no- ev ide nce g ro unds w ere tha t: ( 1) there w as no ev ide nce that i t ow ed th e Garci as more than ital re ady

pai d; ( 2) there w as no ev ide nce that the Garci as had anyco mplai nt
w it h t h e w ay

Sta te F ar m handl ed th eir cl aims , ot her

than thatSta te F ar m di d notpay enoug h; an d ( 3) there w as no ev ide nce of anymis re present ati ons by Sta te F ar m.O t her cour t s of app eal s hav e he l d t hat t he a ppr opr i at e i nqui r y i s w het her t he n o- ev i dence m ot i on 5 p ro v i d e s “fa i r n o ti c e ” o f t h e e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re w a s n o e v i d e n c e . See R oth v. FF P O per ating Partner

s, L .P ., 9 9 4 S .W .2 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 (T e x . A p p .– A m a ril l o 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ); C f. In re E s ta te o f H a ll , N o. 0 5
- 9 8
- 0 1 9 2 9
- CV, 2 0 0 1 W L 7 5 3 7 9 5 , a t * 3 ( Tex

. A p p . – Da l l a s J u l y 0 5 , 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t

. ) ( n o t d e s i g n a t e d f or publ i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hat a m ot i on t hat f ai l ed t o st at e t he el em ent s of t he cl ai m s chal l enged di d no t pr ov i de “f a i r n o ti c e ”)

. R e c e n tl y , i n d i c ta , t h i s C o u rt i m p l i e d a s m u c h

. S e e Vi lla rre a l v . D e l M a r

C o ll e g e , N o. 1 3 -0 7 -0 0 1 1 9 -C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 7 8 1 7 5 0 , a t *3 & n . 2 1 , *5 n . 4 5 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti M a r. 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h. ) ( m em . op. ) ( ci t i ng W a i t e v . W o o d wa rd , Ha ll & P r imm , P

. C. , 137 S. W

. 3d 2 77, 281 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st 15 On ap peal , St ate F ar m cl aims th a t thes e arg uments w ere s uff ic ien t t o att ack the Garcias’ brea ch of cont ract claims and all of their “extra-cont ractua l” cl aim s. State Farm poi nts out that the G ar ci as hav e notch all eng ed th e tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng s w it h resp ectto the
m o ld cl a im s , wh ic h t h e su p re m e co u rth a s h e ld a re n o tco ve re d lo s s e s u n d e r t h e p o li c y. See Feiss , 202 S.W .3d at 753 . W ith respe ct to the w ate r dam age claims, St ate Farm
ar g ues t h a t t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s h o w t h a t i t o w e d t h e G a r c i a s mo re t h a n the $26 ,77 9.4 2 it alread y

paid, and this is suf

f icient to defeatall the Garcias’ claims. How ever, a motio n for no-evidence summ ary judgme nt that on ly g ene rally

atta cks a factual theo ry , w it hout spec ify ing the ele ments of the c lai ms bei ng att ack ed, i s i nsuffici ent to suppor

t a no- ev ide nce summar y judg ment. See K

il lam , 53 S. W .3d at 3-4. Rule 16 6a(i) is clear in its requireme nt tha t the m otion “m ust” state sp ecif ically t he elem ent s of

the claim challen ged, an d the co mm entt o the rule f urthe r prov ides th at th e “mo tion m ust be specif ic in challen ging t he evidentiary sup port for a n elem ento f a cla im or defense ; paragraph (i) doe s not au tho riz e con clusory mo tions o r g ene ral no-evidence chal l en g es t o an opp one nt's
case. ” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a c mt. Here, S tate Far m’s no- ev ide nce moti on di d notst ate spec ific all y

w hic h el ements of the cl aims w ere being ch all eng ed, b ut rather , at tac ked one of the Ga rcias’ fa c t u a l t h e o ries w ithou t specif y ing w hich ele me nts th e the oryallegedly suppo rt ed. Acc ordin g ly , w e w il l treat t hese arg uments as tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment g ro unds. See M

ichael , 41 S.W .3d a t 751 -5 2. 5D is t. ] 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t. ) ( h o ld in g th a t b y f a ilin g to r e f e r e n c e R u le 1 6 6 a ( c ) o r to c ite a n y e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h c la im

as a m at t er of

l aw, t he p l ai nt i ff ’ s m ot i on f ai l ed t o pr ov i de f ai r n oti c e t ha t m ot i on was br ought on t r adi t i onal gro un ds ))

. H owev er , i n M i chael v. D yke , t hi s C our t rej ect ed a “ f ai r not i ce” st andar d when const r ui ng a noev i dence m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent

. 4 1 S. W

. 3d 7 46, 750
- 51 n

. 3 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 1, no p e t.); s e e a ls o H a n s l e r v . N u e c e s C o u n ty , N o. 13- 99- 583- C V, 200 1 W L 99 7350, at *3 (T ex . App. –C or pus C h ris ti M a y 3 , 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) (c o n tra s ti n g , i n d i c ta , t h e “fa i r n o ti c e ” s ta n d a rd u n d e r R u l e 1 6 6 a (c ) w i th s u b s e c tio n ( i) ’s s p e c if ic ity r e q u ir e m e n t) . W e r e a ff ir m th a t h o ld in g to d a y, a n d w e a g a i n h o l d th a t t h e “ f a ir n o ti c e ” s ta n d a rd d o e s n o t a p p l y to R u l e 1 6 6 a (i)’ s re q u i re m e n t th a t th e m o ti o n s ta te s p e c i fic a l l y th e e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . T o th e e x te n t t h a t Villar real sugg est s ot her wi se, we no t e t hat t he i ssue was n o t ra i s e d b y th e a p p e l l a n t, a n d o u r s ta te m e n ts w e re d i c ta

. S e e Vi lla rre a l, 2 0 0 9 W L 7 8 1 7 5 0 , a t *5 n . 4 5

. G ener al l y , “ T exas f ol l ows a ‘ f ai r not i ce’ st andar d f or pl eadi ng, whi ch l ooks t o whet her t he o pposi ng p a r ty c a n a s c e r ta in f r o m t h e p le a d in g th e n a tu r e a n d b a s ic is s u e s o fth e c o n tr o v e r s y a n d w h a t t e s tim o n y w ill be rel eva nt. ” H or

i z on/ C M S H eal thcare Cor

p. v. Aul d, 34 S. W

. 3d 8 87, 896 ( T ex. 200 0)

. I n ot her wor ds, ev en t ho ug h t he pl ea di ng i s no t pr ec i se , i ft he r es po nd i ng p ar t y u nd er st oo d t he a l l eg at i on s ort he c ou r t , o n r ev i ew , can deci pher t he al l egat i ons, t he pl eadi ng pr ov i ded “ f ai r not i c e.” S ee id. ; see, e. g. , 199 4 La nd Fund I Iv. R am ur , I nc. , N o. 05- 98- 00074
- C V, 200 1 W L 92 696, at * 6 ( T ex. App. –D al l as Feb. 05, 200 1, n o pe t

. ) ( not desi gnat ed f or pub l i cat i on) ( r ev i ewi ng f act ual asser t i ons i n no - ev i dence m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udgm ent and a s s i g n i n g a s s e rti o n s to e l e m e n ts o f n o n -m o v a n t’ s c l a i m s b y a p p l y i n g “fa i r n o ti c e ” s ta n d a rd ).

H owev er , R ul e 16 6a( i ) and t he c om m ent s t her et o m ake cl ear t hat , wi t h r espect t o t he e l em ent s of t he n on- m ov ant ’ s cl ai m s bei ng ch al l enged , t he m ov ant m ust do m or e t han pr ov i de “ f ai r not i ce”

— t he m ov ant “m u s t” s ta te th e s p e c i fic e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( i ) & cm t

. Ev en t hough by app l y i ng a “ f ai r not i ce” st andar d, t hi s C our t cou l d m ak e an edu cat ed g uess a s t o t he e l em ent s bei ng c ha l l en ge d, w e d ec l i ne t o d o s o be c au s e: (1) t he rul e i s cl ea r as t o i t s requ i rem en t s an d u s es t he m an da t ory t erm “m us t , ” (2) i t i s re l ati vel y e as y to s t ate t he el em en t s of a c l ai m for wh i c h t he re i s no evi de nc e, an d (3) a pr operm ot i on sh i f t s t he bu rde n t o t he n on- m ov ant t o com e f or war d wi t h ev i dence. Appl y i ng a “ f ai r not i ce” st andar d woul d pl ace t oo g rea t a b ur den on t he n on- m ov ant and woul d be cl ear l y cont r ar y t o t he e xpr ess l a n g u a g e o f R u le 1 6 6 a (i). See H ol l ow ay v. Tex. El ec. U ti li t y C onstr. , Lt d. , N o. 12- 07- 00427
- C V, 200 9 W L 7 6 5 3 0 4 , a t *5 (T e x . A p p .– T y l e r M a r. 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h .); Fi el dt ech Avioni cs & I nstrum ents, I nc. v. C om ponen t C ontrol

. C om , I nc. , 2 6 2 S .W .3 d 8 1 3 , 8 2 4 n .4 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); M ot t v. R ed’ s Saf e & Lock Ser vs. , I nc. , 2 4 9 S .W .3 d 9 0 , 9 8 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); M i chael , 41 S. W

. 3d a t 751 n. 3; C al l aghan R anch Lt d. v. Ki llam , 5 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 3 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ). St at e Far m al so pr esent ed ev i dence t o suppor t i t s no- ev i dence ar gum ent s. H owev er , we can not 6 consi der ev i dence subm i t t ed i n suppor t of a no- ev i dence m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent , except t o t he e xt ent th a t e v i d e n c e ra i s e s a fa c t i s s u e i n th e G a rc i a s ’ fa v o r. Binur v. Jacob o , 13 5 S

. W

. 3d 64 6, 65 1 (T ex . 20 04 ). 16 T h e se c o n d , co n d it io n a l m o t io n fo r s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t , h o we ve r, is a d if fe re n tst o ry. Fi rs t, Stat e F a rm ’s second moti on c lea rl y st ated that there w as no ev ide nce that the Garci as suffer e d mental ang uis h. It sta ted t hat “ mental ang uis h damag es are l imi ted t o situat ions w here the ha ndling of a claim creat ed a n guish sig nif icant e nou gh to seriously dis ru pt t he i n su re d ’s li fe.” Stat e F ar m al so arg ued t hat t here w as no ev ide nce that it s condu ct caus ed the G ar ci as any su ch mental ang uis h. See T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. 617

§ 17. 50( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2008) (al low ing m ental angui sh damag es for v iol ati ons of DTPA and for v iol ati ons of chapte r 541 of the Tex as Ins urance Cod e) ; se e a ls o Berry v. Cov ar ru bia s , No. 14- 03- 01137- CV , 200 4 W L 16311 17, a t *8 ( T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th Dist.] 200 4, no pet .) (mem

. op. ) (“Berry prese nte d no ev iden ce of me nta l anguish. T hus, putti ng as ide any

admi ss ion on B er ry ’s behal f, the t ri al cour t’ s r uling w as cor re ct on no- ev ide nce g ro unds. ”)

. Next, Stat e Far m’s sec ond moti on arg ued that the Garci as w oul d onl y be en ti tl ed to s tatut or

y trebl e damag es under the Tex as Ins urance Co de i f there w ere ev ide nce that Stat e F ar m “k now ing ly ” v iol ated a s tatut or y prov is ion

. See T EX
. I NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 541. 152 (V er non Pa mphlet2008)

. Stat e F ar m arg ued that there w as no ev ide nce that ithad act ed know ing ly ; thus, the Garci as are not enti tl ed to trebl e damages under the i nsurance code. Fi nal ly , St ate F ar m arg ued t hat there w as no ev ide nce of mali ce, w hic h St ate F ar m arg ues
w oul d be re q uired t o s uppor t a cl aim for puni ti v e damag es. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 41. 003( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 8)

. Al th ou g h th e Ga r c i as ’ ap pe l l at e br i ef po i nt s to th e ev i de nc e th ey s ub mi tt ed in
re spons e to the s econd moti on for summar y j udg ment, they

do n ot c it e a s ing le cas e or ex pla in how thi s ev ide nce suppo rt s thei r cl aims for ment al ang uis h, t re ble damag es under the ins urance code, or puni ti v e damag es. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i)

. Acc ordin g ly , not hin g is present ed for our

rev iew

. In sum , w e susta in the Garcias’ fourth issue w ith re spectto the no-evidence
arg uments i n St ate F ar m’s first moti on. How ev er , w e af firm the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ment t hat the G ar ci as are notenti tl ed to recov er mental ang uis h, t re ble dama ges f o r know ingW e no t e t hat t he D T P A a l l ow s t r ebl e da m ages i ft he co nsum er pr ov es t hat t he co nduct was 7 com m i t t ed “ i nt ent i onal l y . ” See T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 50( b) ( 1) ( Ver non 2002)

. T he G ar ci as, ho w eve r, di d n ot pl ea d t he y w ere en t i t l ed t o t reb l e da m ag es for S t ate F arm ’ s i nten t i on al co nd uc t , bu t rat he r, l i m i te d th e i r p l e a d i n g to k n o w i n g vio l a ti o n s . T h e G a rc i a s , l i k e w i s e , d i d n o t a rg u e to th e tri a l c o u rt th a t S ta te F a rm ’ s c o n d u c t w a s i n te n ti o n a l

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a (c) (“ I s s ue s no t ex pre s s l y pre s en t ed t o t he t ri al co urt b y w rit te n m o ti o n , a n s w e r o r o th e r re s p o n s e s h a l l n o t b 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 fo r re v e rs a l .”).

T he G ar ci as’ secon d i ssue a r gues t hat t he t r i al cour t er r oneou sl y sust ai ned St at e Far m ’ s obj ect i ons 8 to th e i r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e . H o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e G a rc i a s ’ s e c o n d i s s u e i n o rd e r to aff i r m t he su m m ar y j udgm ent f or f ai l ur e t o ad equat el y br i efhow t hat ev i dence, i fpr oper l y consi der ed, s u p p o rte d th e i r c l a i m s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1
. 18 v i ol at i on s o f t he i ns uran c e c od e, o r e x em pl ar

y da ma g es for th ei r extra- c on trac tu al c l ai ms 7 based on mal ic iou s c onduc t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ; Ander son v. Long, 118 S.W .3d 806 , 811 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 03, no pe t.). 8 V. S TA TE F A RM ’ S T RA DI TI ONA L M OT I ON By thei r thi rd and fourth is sues , t he Ga rc ias arg ue th at S tate Far m fail ed to meet it s burden t o s how

th a t th e re are no g enui ne i ss ues of materi al fact w it h respect t o one or more ele ments of thei r cl aims , and thatthe y p ro f f ered s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to de feat the tradi ti onal moti on. As par t of these arg uments , the Garc ias also arg ue that the tradi ti onal moti on di d notnegat e anyelements of thei r cl aims to the e xtent that thes e w ere bas ed on Stat e F ar m’s fail ure to pay for a ll thei r w ater

damag e, as oppos ed to mol d damag e. First, the Garcias arg ue that the traditio nal motion w as limited to the ir mold claim s,
w hic h St ate F ar m arg ued w ere prec lud ed bythe Tex as Supreme C our t’ s d eci si on i n Feiss
a n d w h i c h t h e G a r c i a s d o n o tc h a l l e n g e o n a p p eal

. 2 0 2 S. W .3d a t 753

. The Garci as argue t h at be caus e St ate F ar m’s tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment w as based sol ely on t he Feiss

dec is ion , t he tradi ti onal moti on has no eff ecton t hei r cl aims for w ater damag e to the h ome. It is true that the mot ion for s ummary j udg ment arg ued t hat t he Ga rc ias ’ breach of cont ra ct cl aim w as bar re d bec ause mold damag e i s not cov ered by the pol icy , rely ing on19

Fe iss. T h e G a r c i a s , h o w e v e r , h a v e a rg u e d t h a tS t a t e F a r m’ s n o - e v i d e n c e a rg u me nts shou ld be trea t e d a s tradition al groun ds for sum ma ry judgmen t. Accordingly , w e w ill proceed i n the manner

su g g est ed by

the Garci as. See M

ichael , 41 S.W .3d a t 751 -5 2. On ap peal , St ate F ar m arg ues that the G ar ci as’ ev ide nce fails to ra is e a fact i ss ue beca use it do es no t dem onst rate th e am oun t tha t the Garcias actu ally s pen t on rep airs, and m o r e i mp o rt a n t l y , d o e s n o td e mo n s t ra t e t h a tt h e G a r c i a s s p e n tm o re t h a n t he $26 ,77 9.4 2 alread y

pai d b y S t a t e Farm. How ever, becau se w e mu st treat St ate Farm’s
arg ument as rais ing a t ra dit ion al g ro und, State Farm bore the i nit ial burden t o demons trate tha t no genu ine i ssue of ma terial fact ex ists w ith respe ct to the Garcias’ breach of contract cl aim. Ma son , 143 S.W .3d a t 798 ; Grinne ll , 951 S. W .2d a t 425 ; Clear Creek Basin , 589 S.W .2d a t 678

. Stat e F ar m has not d one s o. Sta t e F a r m a t t a c h e d t h e i n s u ra n c e p o l i c y t o i t s mo t i o n fo r s u mm a r y j u dg ment. It provides: W e w ill pay onlythe act ual cash v alue of the da ma ged buildin g structu re(s) unti l re pai r or

repl acementi s c omplet ed. .

. . Upo n com ple ti on of r epai rs or repla cem ent , w e w il l pay the addi ti onal amount cl aimed under repl acement co stco vera ge, bu t o u r pa yme n t w ill n o t exce e d th e sm a lle st o f th e fo llo wing: (1 ) the l imi t of l iab il ity under the pol icy

appl ic abl e to the d amag ed or dest roy ed b uilding structure(s); (2) the cost to repa ir or replace thatpart of t h e b u ilding structure(s) dam aged, w ith ma terial of like kind and qua lity

a nd for t he sa me use and oc cupan cy

on t he s ame premis es; or ( 3 ) th e a mo u n t a c t u a l l y a n d n e c e s s a r i l y s p e n t o n re p a i r o r re p l a c e the dam aged bu ilding structure(s). (E mphasi s a dded)

. Stat e Far m arg ues that it s li abi li ty is li mite d to the a mount t he Ga rc ias “a ctu all y and neces sar il y ” spentto re pai r thei r home, an d the re i s n o ev ide nce that the Garcias spe nt m ore tha n it alread y paid to repair the water dam age. State Farm, ho w ever,20

inc or re ctl y

as sumes thati ts li abi li ty i s l imi ted t o the amount the G ar ci as act ual ly sp ent. The cont ra ctu al prov is ion urg ed by Sta te F ar m as a l imi t of its li abi li ty

onl y appl ies "[u ]po n com pletio n of

rep airs o r rep lacem ent ." S tate Fa rm did notp resen t any ev iden ce de mo ns trat i ng th at th e r ep ai rs ha v e be en c om pl et ed

. In fac t, St at e F ar m’ s ev iden ce inc lud ed R amon Garci a’s depos it ion tes ti mony , w herein he sta ted that the Garci as had not y e t r e p l a c e d t h e fl o o rs i n t h e i r h o u s e b e c a u s e t h e y ra n o u t o f money . Se e Bi nur , 135 SW .3d a t 651 ( prov idi ng thatev ide nce attac hed t o a n o- ev ide nce moti on may be
cons ide re d i f itcreat es a f actiss ue)

. He tes ti fied that there w as car pet that sti ll needed to be replaced . View ing the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e Garcias, th is ev iden ce shows that the repairs for the w ate r dam age to their hom e w ere not com plete d. Beca use the ev iden ce sho w s thatthe Ga rcias had n ot com plete d the repairs to t h e irh o m e , i tis imp ossible to det ermin e the " am oun t actu ally a nd nece ssarily

sp ent ." Th us, Sta te Farm ’s
mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t w as ba sed o n a f law ed prem ise. A ccordingly , w e reverse the t ri al cour

t’ s summar

y jud g ment on the Garci as’ breach of c ontract cl aim based on S tate Far m’s fail ure to pay

for w ater

damag e. Seco nd, S tate Far m arg ued t hat t he Ga rc ias ’ “e xtra- co n tract ual ” cl aims fail ed becau se there w as no c ov erag e. Stat e F ar m arg ued t hat t o establ is h a breach of the d uty of g ood faith a nd fair dealing, the Garcias had to prove that St ate Farm k n e w or should hav e k now n i ts li abi li ty w as re asona bly

cl ear and that despi te c lea r li abi li ty , i t fail ed to attemptto eff ect uate a prompt, fair , and equi tabl e settl ement of the cl aim. See Universe Lif e Ins. Co. v. Gi

les , 950 S.W .2d 48, 56 (Tex

. 1997)

. Stat e Far m arg ued that there c an be no bad fait h for failu re to pay a c lai m thatis n ot actual ly co v ered. See R epubl

ic Ins . C o.
v. Stok er , 903 S.W .2d 338 , 341 (Tex. 1995 ). W e agree w ith the Garcias tha t Stat e Farm’s21

mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t limite d t h is a rg um entto the Garcias’ mold claims. T his por ti on of the moti on for summar y jud g ment spec ific all y arg ued that “[ t]he Feiss ru li ng and term s of the po licy excluding coverage for mo ld and [add itiona l li v ing ex pen ses] est ablish that Stat e F ar m’s l iab il ity w as nev er re asona bly cl ear .” Stat e Far m did not a ss ert t hat i ts li abi lit y n ev er

bec ame reason abl y

cl ear bec ause itpai d al l itow ed for w ater damag e. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s s ummaryj udg ment w as in er ro r to t he extent that itw as g ra nted on th e Garci as’ bad faith c lai ms rela ti ng to the fai lure to pay for w ater

damag e. St at e F ar m l i k ew i s e arg ue d th atw he n ba d fai th , i ns uran c e c od e, a nd D TPA c l ai ms “a re p re m ise d o n the sa me setof facts, the sta tutor y cl aims depend on t he ex is tenc e of
a v ali d bad faith c lai m.” St ate F ar m reason ed th at be caus e Feiss compel s t he c oncl usi on th atS ta te F ar m w as n otl i ab l e for a cov ered c l ai m, t he G arc i as ’ e xtra- c on trac tu al c l ai ms neces sar il y

fail al ong w it h the ir

breach of co n tr a ct cl aims

. Ag ain , w e ag re e w it h the Garci as that thi s arg ument w as li mite d to the Garci as’ m old clai ms. Ac cordin g ly , t he tr ial court’s sum ma ry

judgmen t wa s i n e rr o r to the extentthatit w as granted on the Garcias’ ins urance code and D TPA cl aims rela ti ng to the fai lure to pay for w ater

damag e. Third, S tate Far m present ed tes ti mony from the Garci as that they did not “ know of any co mplai nts ” they

had w it h respect t o State F ar m’s handl ing of thei r cl aims “ other than tha t . . . [they] haven’t bee n pa id eno ugh.” This argum entw as no t limited to the Garcias’
mo ld claims, a nd we find t hatthe Ga rcias have not prese rv ed th eir arg um ent s against this g ro und for the s ummary j udg ment. As w e n o ted a bov e, al thoug h the Garci as’ appel lat e brief point s to the ev iden ce the y subm itted in respon se to th e mo t io n for sum ma ry jud g ment, they

do not ci te a si ng le cas e or ex pla in how

thi s e v ide nce suppo rt s t hei r extracont ractua l claims, to the extent those are base d on some thing oth er tha n Sta te F a rm ’s22

failure to p ay for w ate r dam age. Add itiona lly , t h e G a rc ia s’ brief doe s not explain th eir tes ti mony

thatthey

di d notkn ow

of any othe r compl ain ts w it h St ate F ar m’s handl ing of the cl aims

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the summar y j udg ment on the Garci as’ extra- cont ra ctu al cl aims , t o the ex tent thos e are bas ed on someth ing othe r than Sta te Farm ’s fa ilure t o pay for all the w ate r dam age, as tha t is the extent of State Farm’s
arg ument t o the tr ial co urt. Fur ther more, State F a rm a lso arg ued t hat t here w as no ev ide nce of anyextracont ra ctu al cl aims based on mi srepresent ati ons by Sta te F ar m, c it ing tes ti mony from An it a Garci a to that effect

and tes ti mony

f ro m Ramon Garci a that he did not tal k to any one from Stat e F ar m. The G ar ci as all eg ed sev eral caus es of acti on bas ed on mis re present ati ons by Sta te F ar m. T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 50( a) (1 ), ( 4) ; id. § 17.4 6(b)(5), (7), (12), (2 4) ( Ver non 200 8) ; T EX
. I NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 4 1 .151 (V er non Pa mphlet2008) ; id. § 5 4 1

. 0 5 1 ( 1 ) ( V e r n o n P a mp h l e t2008) ; id. § 54 1.060( a) (1 ) (V er non Pa mphlet2008) ; id. § 5 4 1

. 0 6 1 (V e rn o n P a m p h le t2 0 0 8 ). On a p p e a l, t h e G a rc ia s d o n o te xp la in t h e ir t e s t im o n y, cite an y cases, or po int to an y

misreprese nta tions b y State Farm. A ccordingly , w e af f irm the s ummary

j udg ment on the G ar ci as’ st atuto ry mis re present ati on c lai ms. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(i). Four th, Stat e F ar m arg ued that becau se “c ov erag e i s n ot afforded pursuantto the ter ms and co ndi ti ons of the poli cy ,” the Garci as’ insurance code clai ms fail as a mat ter of law

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e mo l d c l a i ms , S t a t e F a r m i s c o r re c t , a n d t h e G a r c i a s h a v e not chal len g e d t h a t r u l i n g o n a p p e a l

. To t h e e xt e n t t h e s e g e n e ra l s t a t e me n t s c o u l d be
cons tr ued as c h a lle n gin g Sta te F ar m’s l iab il ity for t he w ater

damag e, w e hav e al re ady rejecte d Sta te Farm ’s arg um entthatthey have no fu rther liability und er the policy. Th us,23

to t he extent the t ri al cour t g ra nted summar

y j udg ment on the G ar ci as’ i nsurance code cl aims bas ed on thi s re asoni ng , w e re v erse the summar y jud g ment on the ins urance code claims. Fi nal ly , St ate F ar m arg ued t hat t he Ga rc ias di d noti ncur any “ a d d it ion al li v ing
ex pense s,” an ele ment of t hei r damag es, bec ause the h ouse w as inh abi tabl e dur ing the
re pai rs , and the Garci as’ daug hter , M eli nda G uer ra , and her famil y were l iv ing i n the
re si dence dur ing the enti re ti me. State Far m present ed te sti mony from R amon Garci a to suppo rtthi s a rg ument. T he Garc ias hav e not addres sed thi s a rg ument on appeal

. See TexR . Ap p. P . 38.1( i)

. Therefore, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment t o the extent ithol ds tha t the Gar c ia s a re n ot en titled to add itiona l li v ing ex pen ses as an elem entof their damag es. V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m, i n par

t, and rev erse and remand, i n par t. Bec ause th e Garc ias do n ot dis pute th a t m o ld i s not a cov ered l oss under thei r homeow ners p oli cy , w e aff ir m the
sum mary

j ud g me ntd i s mi s s i ng t he G arc i as ’ mo l d c l ai ms . W e al s o affi r m t he t r i al c ou rt’s
sum ma r y j ud g me nto n th e Ga r c i as ’ c l ai ms for ( 1) me nt al a ng ui s h da ma g es ; ( 2) t reble damag es; ( 3) ex emplar y damages ; and (4) damages for additi onal liv ing ex pense s u nder the policy . W e likew ise af f irm the trial court’s summ ary judgme nt on the Ga rcias’ insurance code and D TPA cl aims , t o the extent thos e are bas ed on “s omethi ng othe r than Stat e F ar m’ s fai l ure to pa y for w at er da ma g e” o r a re ba s ed o n mi s rep res en ta ti on s b y S ta te F ar m. How ever, w e reverse the trial court’s judgme nt on th e Garcias’ claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty

of g ood fait h and fair

deal ing rela ti ng to w ater damag e. To further

su mmari z e, on remand, t he c lai ms s ti ll av ail abl e to the G ar ci as are ( 1)24

breach of cont ra ct and breac h of the duty of good faith and fair

deali ng , and ( 2) v iol ati ons of the i nsurance code and DTPA, to the e xtent thos e are bas ed on Stat e F ar m’s fail ure to pay fo r all the w ate r dam age to the Garcias’ hom e. T he d am ages available for these cl aims w il l not i ncl ude: (1 ) mental ang u ish d amag es; ( 2) trebl e damag es under the Ins urance Cod e for condu ct commi tted “k now ing ly ,” ( 3) e x emplar y damag es based on
m a li c io u s co n d u c t , a n d (4 ) a d d it io n a l l ivi n g e xp e n s e s u n d e r t h e p o li c y.

_________

_________

_________

_____ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Con cur ri ng Opi nio n by J u s t ic e L in d a Re yn a Ya ñ e z. Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 3 0th d ay

of Apr il , 200 9.