T he st y l e of t he ca se l i st s t wo Al l st at e com pani es as def endan t s: Al l st at e I nsur ance C om pany and 1 Al l st at e I ndem ni t y C om pany
. I n i t s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent , Al l st at e r ef er r ed t o i t sel fby bot h na m es w ith o u t d is tin g u is h in g b e tw e e n th e tw o . T h e tr i a l c o u r t g r a n te d “ D e f e n d a n t A lls ta te In d e m n ity C o m p a n y’s M ot i on f or Sum m ar y Judgm ent ” and t hen di sm i ssed Pet r ee’ s “ cl ai m s agai nst D ef endan t Al l st at e I nsur ance 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0002 8-CV 

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

## EDI NBURG
JA NIC E PE TR EE, A pp ellan t,
v. S O U T H E R N F AR M B U R E AU C ASU A L T Y IN SU R

A N C E C OMPA N Y, A LLSTA TE INSURA NCE COM PA NY A ND A LL ST A

TE IN DEMNITY COMPA NY, A pp ellees . On a p p ea l f ro m th e 26 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s App ellant , J anice Petree , app eals f rom th e trial court’s grant ing of summ ary judgme nt in favor of a ppe llees, Allstat e Ind em nity Com pan y (“ Allstate ”) and Sout hern 1C om pany
. ” No par t y on appea l di ff er ent i at es be t ween t he t wo com pani es, so we wi l l t r eat t hem as one f or

p u r p o s e s o fth is a p p e a l.

T he f act s und er l y i ng t hi s case ar e no t di sput ed. 2 T he su m m ar y j udgm ent r ecor d does not cont ai n a “ gr een car d” i ndi cat i ng r ecei pt of t he r equest f or 3 adm i ssi on s
. Al l s t a t e ’ s r e q u e s t f o r a d m i s s i o n s c o n t a i n s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e r v i c e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e q u e s t was s ent t o Pet r ee. T he r ecor d al so con t ai ns a pr i nt
- out f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Post al Ser v i ce websi t e whi ch dem onst r at es t hat a package wi t h t he sa m e t r acki ng l abel as t he one at t ached t o t he r equest fo r adm i ssi ons wa s de l i v er ed i n Vi ct or i a, Texa s bu t t o a di ff er en t z i p co de t ha n t he o ne a ss oc i at ed wi t h Pet r ee ’ s l as t kno wn a d d re s s o n fi l e w i th th e tri a l c o u rt. 2 Fa r m B u r e a u C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e C o mp a n y ( “ S o u t h e r n F a r m B u r e a u ” ) ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , t he “A ppel lee s” ). Pe tr ee as ser ts that (1 ) her

due proces s righ ts w er e deni ed w hen t he tr ial
cour t g ra n ted s ummary

j udg ment bas ed on deemed admi ss ion s w hen s he w as nev er
serv ed wi th th e request fo r adm issions; and ( 2) the trial court erred by not granting Petree ’s moti on for new

tr ial bec ause there w as no competent summar y judg ment proof su ppor ti ng the a ppel lee s’ moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. W e rev erse and remand. I. B A CKGRO UND 2 On Aug ust 21, 2002, Petree w as trav eli ng on U .S. hig hw ay 5 9 in V ic t o ri a Co u n t y, Tex as, w hen s he w as re ar-e nded by anot her dr iv er
. Petree w as dr iv ing a v ehi cl e ow ned by Ja y W il li ams an d i nsured b y A llstate. O n Aug ust18, 2006, Petree s ued Al ls tate Ins ur ance Co mpany

and Southe rn Farm Bur eau for breac h of

contractf or

r efusing to pay under ins ur ed motor is t (“ UI M” ) benefits

. On A pr il 4, 2007, Petree adde d Al ls tate Indemni ty Compan y as an addi ti onal defendant. On Ma y 6, 2008, Petree’ s couns el filed a moti on to
w ithdra w and a mo tion for co ntinu ance . On May 19, 20 08, the trial court grante d Pet ree’s
c o u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w a n d fo r c o n t in u a n c e a n d n o t e d t h a t P e t re e ’s la s tkn o wn addr ess w as: “ c/o M r. Ja y W il li ams, 3308 C ole tov il le Roa d, V ic tor ia, Tex as 77905.” On Ma y 27, 2008, in a lett er

dated May

22, 2008, Al ls tate sentto Petree, v ia cer ti fied mai l, i ts request for adm issions. Th e request for adm issions aske d the followi ng three questio ns: 3D ur i ng or al ar gum ent , t hi s C our t st r enuou sl y adm oni shed counsel f or t he a ppel l ees r egar di ng t he 4 u s e o f s u c h re q u e s ts fo r a d m i s s i o n s
. S e e S te lly v . P a p a n ia , 927 S. W

. 2d 6 20, 622 ( T ex. 199 6) ( not i ng t hat t he p r i m a r y , i n t e n d e d p u r p o s e o f r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s i s t o “ ‘ s i m p l i f y t r i a l s b y e l i m i n a t i n g m a t t e r s abo ut whi ch t her e i s n o r eal cont r ov er sy , but whi ch m ay be di ff i cul t or expe nsi v e t o pr ov e. [ T hey wer e] nev er i nt ended t o be used as a de m and upon a pl ai nt i ffo r d ef endan t t o ad m i t t hat he had no ca use o fact i on o r gr ound ofdef ense. ’ ” ) ( quot i ng Sander s v. H arder , 1 4 8 T e x . 5 9 3 , 2 2 7 S .W .2 d 2 0 6 , 2 0 8 (1 9 5 0 ))

.

3 Do y ou admi t or

deny thatthe motor

v ehicl e a cc id e nt t hat o cc ur re d on Aug us t 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 b e tw e e n y o u a n d J a me s S mi t h o f [ s i c ] w h i c h fo r ms t he basi s o f this l aw sui t w as 100% prox imat ely ca used by

y our neg li g ence[ ?] Do y ou admi t or

deny thaty ou su f

f e re d n o i nju ri es as a resul t of the motor v ehi cl e ac ci dent that occ ur re d on Aug ust21, 2008 be tw een y ou and James Smit h[?] Do y ou adm it o r de ny tha t y ou have no v alid claim a gainst Allstate Insuran ce Compan y

and/ or Al ls tate Indemni ty

C ompany

under it s i nsured, J ay W il li a m s ’[ , ] Un d e ri n s u re d Mo t o ri s tco ve ra ge o f h is p o li c y? 4 On A ug ust14, 2008, Al ls tate filed i ts moti on for summar y j udg ment bas ed on Pet ree’s failure to resp ond to its reque st for a dm issions, assertin g tha t the adm issions w ere deemed admi tted and arg uin g that Petre e w as therefore un abl e to prov e the r eq uis it es of her under ly ing U IM cl aim. On Aug ust 20, 2008, Southe rn F ar m Bureau fil ed i ts moti on for
summar y j udg ment mak ing the same a ss erti ons as Al ls tate and rely ing on t he deemed adm issions to Allsta te’s request for adm issions. On Se pte mb er 19, 2 0 0 8 , t h e t rial court hel d a h ear ing on b oth mot ion s for su mmary

j udg ment. Pet re e, un re pr esent ed s inc e her
couns el’ s w it hdr aw al on May 19, 2008, atten ded the heari ng pro s e. The tr ial co urt g ra nted bot h mo tions for sum ma ry judgmen t. Petree hired cou nsel, who f iled a mo tion for new trial,
w hic h, after

a he ar ing , w as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 32 9b. This appeal ens ued. II. WA I VER Bef ore w e discuss Pe tree’s ap pellat e issues, w e mu st add ress the a ppe llees’ cont ent ion th at Petree w aived her r ight to com plain a bou t the dee me d ad mission s beca use4

she lea rn ed of

h e r f a ilu re to re spond pr ior to jud g ment and had other av enues of re li ef
av ail abl e, s uch as fili ng a moti on to w it hdr aw the d eemed admi ss ion s. See Unifund CCR Par tner s v . Weaver

, 262 S.W .3d 7 96, 7 98 ( Tex . 200 8) ( per cu ri am). W e di sag re e. In Uni fund , Unif und CCRPartne rs ( “Unif und ”) sued W eaver to recover a n unp aid debt. Id. at 797. U nifund attac hed req uest s for disc los ur e and admis si ons to its ci tati on. Id. W e a ver, p ro ceedi ng pro s e, fil ed an answ er w it h hi s respon ses to the req uest s attac hed. Id. Al though the face of W eav er ’s r espon se ind ic ated that he s ent a co py to Uni fund’s attor ney , and W eav er’s sig nature foll ow s t he te xt, “C ER TIFIC ATE OF SERVIC E,” U nifund’ s a ttor ney fil ed an aff ida v itw it h hi s m o ti on for summar y j udg ment decl ar ing that he nev er r ecei v ed th e respon se. Id. ; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 21a, 198.2; Cliff v. Huggin s , 724 S.W .2d 7 78, 7 80 ( Tex . 198 7) ( noti ng that“ [r ]ul e 21a set s u p a p re sumpti on that w hen not ic e of tr ial se tti ng proper ly address ed and post ag e pr epai d is mai led , t hat t he noti ce w as duly

recei v ed bythe addr ess ee. This presumpt ion may be rebutt ed by

an o ff er of proof of non re ceipt. ”) ( ci tati ons omit ted) ). U nifund c lai med thati t w as enti tl ed to
sum ma ry

judgmen t beca use “the facts set out in its requests for adm issions w ere aut om atically adm itted w hen W eaver failed to time ly serv e his respon ses.” Uni fund , 262 S. W .3 d at79 7 (cit in g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 198.2( c) ). The tri al cour t g ra nted Uni fund’s moti on for
summar y j udg ment. Id. W eaver did notf ile a mo tion for new trial, and the f irst time he asserted t h at his
re spons es were t im e ly se rv ed w as in his br ief to the W aco Cou rtof Appeal s. Id. The W aco Cou rt of A ppeal s re v ersed “b ecaus e W eav er ’s r espon ses to Uni fund’s re q uestfor adm issions w ere on f ile w hen the sum ma ry judgmen t mo tion was g rante d.” Id. ; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(c) (stating that discovery respon ses set forth in th e m o t io n for sum ma ry jud g ment, alo ng w it h the par ti es’ admi ss ion s t hat a re on fil e w it h the co urt atthe ti me of the5

summar y jud g ment hear ing , is compet ent summar y j udg ment ev ide nce) ; R.I.O. Syst em s, Inc . v . U nio n C a rbide Cor

p. , 780 S.W .2d 489 , 492 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 198 9, w rit den i e d ) ( “ W h i l e t h e b e t t e r p r a c t i c e i s t o a t t a c h a l l s u mm a r y j u d g me n t e v i d e n c e to the
mo tion p resen ted to the court, th e rule itself state s thatthe trial co u rt s h all conside r all
s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t e vid e n c e ‘o n f il e
. ’” ). T h e su p re m e co u rta f f ir m e d , st a t in g, “[ E ] ve n if we broadl y constr ue W eav er ’s post- jud g ment f il ing , W eav er w aiv ed his r ig ht to c hal len g e the dee me d ad mission s.” Uni fund , 262 S.W .3d a t 798

. The supreme cour

t di sti ng uis hed Uni

fund from W heeler v. Gr een , 157 S.W .3d 4 39 (Tex . 200 5) ( per

cu ri am), w her ein a pro se appell ant w as per mitt ed to rais e, in a m oti on for new tri al, the timeline ss of her respon ses to requests for a dm issions, w hich w ere un time ly filed and deemed admi tted. See U nif und , 262 S.W .3d at 798. The supreme co urt not ed that, in c ontrastto W

heeler , “e v en if w e cons tr ue W eav er ’s post -j udg ment fili ng as a mot ion for new trial, Unif und ’s motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t puthim on n otice o f the de f iciency of his r espon se: th at U nifund ne v er r ecei v ed th e respon se becau se W eav er had not
serv ed, or attem pte d to serve, the resp onse on Unif und .” Id. W e bel iev e, ho w ev er , t hat t he presentca se is si mil ar to W heeler
. 157 S. W .3d a t 442. In W

heeler , sixty- four requests for adm issions w ere de em ed a dm itted beca use W heel er , proceed ing pro s e, filed her re spons e tw o day s lat e due to a mis tak e reg ardin g the “ mail box

r ule ”: W hee le r did not re ali z e tha t t he mai lbo x r ule st arts the c loc k r unni ng for her to respo nd to the reque sts on th e da y the request s are prope rly placed in the m ail. Id. at 441; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 1a. Summary j udg ment w as entered for Gr een based on the deemed admi ss ion s. W heeler , 157 S. W .3d a t 441

. Gr een at tac hed t he req uest s for admis si on to hi s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment. Id. In his moti on for summar y j udg ment, “G re en arg ued [that] W heel er admi tted ev er

y el ement of [G re en’ s] cl aims ag ain st her by6

faili ng to ti mely

r espon d to the req uest s for admi ss ion and, there f o re , he w as enti tl ed to judgme nt as a ma tter of law .” W heeler v. Gr een , 119 S.W .3d 8 87, 8 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003) , r e v ’d , 157 S.W .3d a t 444

. W heel er did not file a re spons e or a moti on to w it hdr aw the dee me d ad mission s, tho ugh she did atte nd b oth summ aryjudgmen t hea rings. W heeler , 157 S.W .3d a t 441 ; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 198.3 (p ro v idi ng for t he amendmentor
w it hdr aw al of deemed admi ss ion s u pon a show ing of g ood c ause, no u ndue pr eju dic e, an d that the “mer it s of t he ac ti on w il l be s ubser v ed by per mitt ing the par

ty to amend or

w it hdr aw the a dmis si on” ). Subs eq uent to summar y jud g ment, W heel er hired an at tor ney and filed a mot ion for
new tr ial , arg uin g thatthe re spons es w er e ti mely fil ed and attac h in g c o p ies of the
re spons es. W

heeler , 157 S.W .3d at 442 . Addressin g the w aiver issue, th e sup reme court held thatW hee ler’s motio n f o r n ew trial w as suf f icient to raise her com plaint s beca use “noth ing i n this record su gg ests th at be fore sum m a ry ju d gm ent w as granted , [W hee ler]
re ali z ed tha t h e r re sp onses w er e l ate, that she needed to mov e to w it hdr aw deemed admis si ons, or that she nee ded t o fil e a respon se to t he s ummary j udg ment rais ing ei ther argume nt.” Id. He re , P e t re e , p ro c e e d i n g p ro se , d id n o tf il e o r s e rve a respo nse to Allstate’s
re q uestfor a dmis si ons. The appel lee s f il ed motions f or summary

judg ment based on the deemed admi ss ion s, w hic h the tr ial co urt g ra nted. Al ls tate attac hed an aff ida v it f ro m it s tr ial co unsel to it s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment s tati ng , i n per ti nent par

t, that more than thi rt y -t hr ee day s h ad pas sed si nce it s re q uest s for admis si ons w er e sent to Petree and that
no res ponse had been recei v ed. Fol low ing the g ra nti ng of summar y j udg ment, Petree hired an attor ney

w ho fil ed a motio n for

newtri al ass erti ng thatPet re e had nev er r ecei v ed the req uest s for

admi ss ion s. Pet re e asked the t ri al cour t t o g ra nt a new

tr ial and to “ eit her7

order [app ell ees] to re -s er

v e the ir r eq uest s for

admi ss ion s u pon [ her co unsel ] or

al low [Pet re e] to f il e a moti on to undeem the admis si ons. ” As i n W heeler , “ the a rg uments and
re q uest s i n [P etree’ s] moti on for new tr ial w er e suffici ent to put the tr ial cour t on not ic e of
ex act ly ” her

co mplai nt. Id. (cit in g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1)

. W e c oncl ude t hat Pet re e w as
en ti tl ed t o r ai s e he r

c om pl ai nt s i n he r

mo ti on for

n ew t r i al b ec au s e no th i ng i n th e r ec ord sug g est s t hat before summary judg ment w as g ra nted, Pet re e real iz ed th at s he need ed to
m o ve to w it hdr aw

deemed admis si ons or thatsh e neede d to file a respon se to t he appel lee s’ moti ons for s ummary j udg ment and rais e the lack of se rv ic e arg ument t her ein

. See id. III . S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

de n ov o the tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng of the appel lee s’ tradi ti onal moti ons for
su m m ar y j udg ment. See Valence Oper ati ng C o. v . D or sett , 164 S.W .3d 656 , 661 (T e x. 2005) ; see a lso Gar

ci a v . C or pus Chr is ti Civ il Ser v. Bd. , N o
. 1 3
- 0 7
- 0 0 5 8 5
- C V , 2 0 0 9 WL 2058892, at *3 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ly 16, 20 0 9 , n o p e t.) ( mem. op.)

. “The
nonmov ant h as no burden t o respon d to a summary judg ment motion unl ess the mov ant conclu siv ely esta blishes its ca use of a ction or d ef ense .” Rho ne- Poulenc, Inc . v . Steel , 997 S.W .2d 217 , 222 -23 (Te x . 199 9). W hen the m ovant’s sum ma ry judgmen t proof

is l egally ins u ffi c i e n t , “ [ t ] h e t r i a l c o u rtm a y n o tg r a n ts u mm a r

y j u d g me n tb y

d e fa u l tb e c a u s e the
non mo v ant did not respo nd to the sum ma ry judgmen t mo tion. ” Id. at 223. “ The mov ant must est abl is h i ts ri g ht t o s ummary j udg ment on the i ss ues ex pr ess ly present ed to the tr ial
cour t by co ncl usi v ely

prov ing al l ele ments of t he mov ant' s caus e of act ion or defense as
a ma tter of

law .” Id. IV. D I S CUS S I ON From ou r read ing of

the reco rd, it app ears tha t, w hile Pet ree’ s c la im sou nde d inN o pa r t y cont ends t hat t he o t her dr i v er was no t und er i nsur ed. 5 8 brea ch of

contract , the a ppe llees’ mo tions for sum ma ry judgmen t asserte d tha t the y w ere not neglig ent . Ho we ve r, beca use th e ap pellee s argued in the ir motion s for sum ma ry judgme nt th at Pe tree ad mitt ed, through th e de em ed a dm issions, th at she w as 100 % liable for th e underl y ing acci dent and that she suff er ed no inj ur ies from t he ac ci dent, w e c onst ru e appel lee s’ moti ons as an attac k on the ele ments of P etree’ s br each of c ontractcl aim based
on the a ppel lee s’ deni al to pa y U IM benefit s t o Pet re e. See Brainard v. Trinity Univ. Ins. Co. , 216 S.W .3d 809, 818 (Tex

. 2006) (“ UI M ins ur ance uti li z es tor t law to d e termine coverage . . . [an d] the insurer’s cont ractua l obligation to pay bene f its doe s not arise un til lia b ili ty an d da m a ges are de te rm in e d .” ) (ci ti n g Hen son v. S. F ar mBu re a uC as. Ins . C o. , 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 4 (T e x. 2 0 0 0 ))

. T o h a ve a cl a im fo r U I M b e n e f it s , P e t r e e m u s th a ve obtai ned a jud g ment or set tl ement “e sta bli shi ng the n eg li g ence and und er ins ur ed s tatus of the ot her m oto rist.” Id. T here fore, to prevail on su mm aryjudgmen t, the app ellees m ust hav e c oncl usi v ely

prov en th at t he o ther dr iv er w as not n eg li g ent a nd notunder ins ur ed, 5
w hic h theyattempt to do uti li z ing the deemed admi ss ion s. Id. ; see Rhon e-Pou lenc, In c. , 997 S. W .2d a t 223

. Allstate ’s req uest s for adm issions aske d three q uest ions: Do y ou admi t or

deny thatthe motor

v ehi cle a cc id e n t t hat o cc ur re d on Aug ust21, 2002 be tw een y ou and James Smi th of [s ic] wh ich forms the basi s o f this l aw sui t w as 100% prox imat ely ca used by

y our neg li g ence[ ?] Do y ou a d m it o r d eny

thaty ou s uff er ed no inj ur ies as a resul t of the motor v ehi cl e ac ci dent that occ ur re d on Aug ust21, 2008 be tw een y ou and James Smit h[?] Do y ou a dm it or deny that y ou have no v alid claim a gainst Allstate Insuran ce Com p a n y

a n d / o r A l l s t a t e I n d e mn i t y

C o mp a n y

u n d e r i t s i n s u r e d , Ja y W il li a m s ’[ , ] Un d e ri n s u re d Mo t o ri s tco ve ra ge o f h is p o li c y?9

Beca use Petree di d notti mely se rv e respon ses to the req uest s, they w er e dee med admit ted. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 198.2( c)

. In t hei r moti ons for summar y jud g ment, the appel lee s re ly on deemed admi ss ion s to t he first tw o q uest ion s: ( 1) thatPet re e’s neg li g ence w as 100% the prox imat e c ause of t h e a c c id e n t ; a n d (2 ) t h a tP e t re e in c u rr e d n o i n ju ri e s a s a r e s u lt o f t h e a c c id e n t

. T h e s e two admis si ons defeat the pr er eq uis it e to a UIM cl aim: t hat s he w as damag ed by the other dr iv er ’s neg li g ence. See Br ain ar d , 216 S.W .3d a t 818 . Thus, t he appe ll ees arg ued t o the trial court tha t the y

w ere en titled to summ aryjudgmen t on Petree ’s brea ch of cont ract claim ag ain st them. In P etree’ s first is sue, sh e arg ues that the t ri al cour t d e nie d her

due proces s b y grant ing the app ellees’ m otion s for sum ma ry judgmen t base d on th e de em ed a dm issions, par ti cul ar ly w hen s he di d notr ecei v e the r eq uest s i n the firs t pla ce. The appel lee s respon d that becau se Petree recei v ed al l of the proc ess that w as due her , s ummary j udg ment w as proper
. W e ag re e w it h Pet re e. W hen the no n-mo v ant has no t engaged in “f lagrant bad faith o r callous disregard for th e r ule s,” su mmary j udg ment i s i mprop er

w hen t he onl y

ev ide nce pr esent ed by the
mov ant i s i n the form of mer it s-p re clusiv e deemed admis si ons. Cedyco Corp. v. W hitehead , 253 S.W .3d 8 77, 8 81 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 08, p et. deni ed) ; W heeler , 157 S.W .3d at 443. This is so becau se “a bsent flag ra nt bad faith or cal lou s dis re g ard for th e rules, du e proc e s s b a rs merits-preclu siv e san ctions . . . .” W heeler , 157 S.W .3d a t 443 (n oti ng that , for due proces s p ur poses , mer it s- pr ecl usi v e deemed a dmis si ons ar e the eq uiv ale nt of mer it s- pr ecl usi v e di sc ov er y sa nct ion s) ; see W

hitehead , 253 S.W .3d at 88 1 (holdin g tha t de e m e d a d m issions on pure questio ns of law are impro per sum ma ry10

jud g ment ev ide nce) ; Boulet v . St ate , 189 S.W .3d 8 33, 8 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 2006, no pet .) ( decl ar ing thatsu mma ry ju d gm e n t in a forfeiture ac ti on may not be susta ined on de em ed a dm issions em bracing the “f und am ent al legal issues to be tried ”). W hen req uest s f or

admi ss ion s a re us ed as i ntended [—] addr ess ing uncon trov e rt e d matt ers o r ev ide nti ar y ones l ik e the auth enti ci ty or admis si bil it y

of document s[—]deemi ng admi ss ion s b y defaulti s u nli ke ly to compromi se pr esent ati on of the meri ts. Bu t w hen a par ty us es deemed ad mi s s i on s t o tr

y to prec l ud e pres en ta ti on of th e me r i ts o f a c as e, t he s am e due- proces s c oncerns ar is e [as i n mer it s- pr ecl usi v e di sc ov er y sa nct ion cas es]

. W heeler , 157 S.W .3d at 443 (citations om itted ). Here, t he deemed admis si ons w er e on the p re re q uis it e fundamen ta l iss u e to be tr ied : li abi lity f o r and damag es ar is ing from t he unde rl y ing ac ci dent. See Braina rd , 216 S.W .3d at 81 8; Boulet , 189 S.W .3d at 838. A deemed admi ss ion thatPet re e w as 100% the prox imat e caus e of t he acc ide nt defeats her neg li g ence cl aim ag ain st the o ther dr iv er
as a m atter

of law

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 3 3.0 01-.0 02 (Ve rnon 200 8). Addi ti onal ly , a deemed admi ss ion thatPet re e i ncur re d no inj ur ies a s a r esul t of the
a c c i d e n t d e fe a t s h e r c l a i ms fo r d a ma g e s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r d r i v e r
. S e e V a n Ho rn v. Chambers , 970 S.W .2d 542 , 544 (Te x . 199 8) (setting forth th e elem ent s of a neglig ence
caus e of act ion ). U nder the re cord before us, w e f ind no ev ide nce of f lag ra nt ba d faith or cal lou s d is re g ard for the r ule s o n Pet re e’s par t. See Wheeler

, 157 S.W .3d a t 443 -4 4. There is no e v ide nce that the a ppel lee s w oul d be unabl e to pr epar e for a tr ial on the mer it s if Pet re e’s admis si ons w er e w it hdr aw n or w oul d suffer undue preju dic e. See i d. & n .2; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 198 .3 (not ing the stan dard for w ithdra w ing deem e d a dm issions requires a show ing of g ood c ause for th e w it hdr aw al, l ack of undue p re

jud ic e, an d tha t t he meri ts of the action w ill be su bserved by perm itting the w ithdra w al). W e con c lu d e t h a t , on th isB e c a u s e w e s u s ta i n P e tre e ’ s fi rs t i s s u e , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s h e r s e c o n d i s s u e
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 6 P. 47. 1. 11 record, th e trial court e rr e d in grant ing summ aryjudgmen t, an d w e susta in Petre e’s f irst is sue. 6 V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing su sta ine d Pet re e’s first is sue, w e re v erse the jud g ment of t he tr ial cour t and
re mand for further

proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

_______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 24th day of June, 2010.