T he ca se’ s pr ocedur al backgr ound i s com pl ex, but t he i ssues r ai sed i n t hi s app eal ar e ne i t her 1 com pl ex no r nov el

. 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 not r eci t e t he f act s her e except as necessar y t o ad v i se t he p ar t i es of t he Cour t ' s deci si on a nd t he b asi c r easons fo r i t. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 149- 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
ENG LISH M A RIN E A GEN CY, INC ., A pp ellan t,
v . BOR DER

SH IPYA RD S, IN C., E T A L., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 1 03rd D istrict Co urt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION 1 

### Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Eng li sh Ma ri ne Ag ency , I nc. ( “E ng li sh Ma ri ne” ), appeal s a j udg ment
re ndered on a j ur

y v erdic t i n f av or

of appell ees, Border

Shi py ards, Inc . ( “B order”) and it s share hold ers, Jorge Go n za le z, Carl Gay ma n, an d Rube n Barrera. By sev eral issues,Bi l l y Keenan and Bust er H ar r i s wer e al so sha r ehol der s at t he t i m e B ord er Shi py ar ds, I nc. was 2 p u r c h a s e d . T h e y a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 2 English Ma rine argues tha t (1) th e evidence is legally and factu ally

insuf f icient to supp ort the j ur y ’s v erdic t, (2 ) the appel lee s w er e pr ecl uded by re s j udi cat a and col lat eral est oppel from reli ti g ati ng w hether Engl is h Mar ine eng ag ed i n “ uncon sc ion abl e c onduc t,” and (3 ) the tr ial co urt fail ed to g iv e proper credi t for a s ettl ing defendant. W e aff ir m. I. Background A . Underly ing Acci dent and Prior Litigation Border i s a sh ipy ard tha t repai rs sh ri mp boats

. It is l ocat ed atthe P ort of Brow nsv il le. I n 1985, Border w as pur chas ed by Jorg e Gonz ale z , Car l Gay man, and R uben Ba rre ra (co lle ct ivel y “th e sh a re h o ld e rs” ). Bo rd e r pu rch a se d in su ra n ce co vera ge t h ro u gh 2 it s a g ent, El eanor

“ Per k” Eng li sh, w ho operated throug h di ff er ent b usi ness enti ti es ov er the y ears. In 19 98, Borde r purchase d an i nsura nce p olicy f rom St . Pau l Mercury Insuran ce Co m p a n y t h ro u gh P e rk , wh o wa s t h e n o p e ra t in g a s E n gl is h Ma ri n e A ge n c y. T h e p o li c y,
w hic h became eff ect iv e on Apr il 28, 1998, prov ide d i n s ect ion II , parag ra ph 1 that St. Paul
w i l l p ay o n be ha l f of t he i ns ured a l l s um s w hi c h th e i ns ured shall b ec om e l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o p a y

a s d a ma g e s b e c a u s e o f: COVERAG E A Bod ily Injury CO VE RA GE B Pr o p e rt y Dam a ge to w hic h thi s i nsurance appl ies , caus ed by the o cc ur re nce, and the C ompany shal l hav e the r ig ht an d dut y to defend any

suitag ain st the i nsured s eeki ng damag es ev en i f anyof the a ll eg ati o n s o f the s uit are g ro undl ess , fals e or fraudul ent .

. . . T he p olicy

def ined bod ily

injury to include dea th. H o we ver, exclusion “J” of the po licy
ex cl uded c ov er ag e for bod ily injury to any emp loyee of

the insu red arising out of and in the cou rse of his empl oy ment by

the ins u re d o r to an y obl ig ati on of the ins ur ed to3

inde mn if y ano the r becau se of

dam ages arising outof such inju ry; b ut th is ex cl usi on does not appl y to lia b ili ty ass umed by the ins ur ed outof an inc ide ntal co ntract [.] In ot her w ords, St. Pa ul agreed to cov er Borde r’s duty to ind em nif y ano the r partybeca use of a personal i nju ry

or deat h i f the l iab il ity

w as ass umed under

an i nci dental co ntract

. The pol icy i nit ial ly defines “ inc id e n ta l cont ra cts ” to ap ply to lea ses , c ertai n eas ement ag re ements , i ndemni ti es re q uired by m u n ici pal ordin ances , s ide track ag re ements , and
e le vat or mai ntenanc e ag re ements

. How ev er , i n s ect ion II I, the p oli cy ex pands the defini ti on of “ inc ide ntal co n tr a ct s” to inc lud e “ any oral or w ri tten cont ra ct or

ag re ement
re lat ing to the condu ct of t he Named Ins ur ed’ s busi ness .” Addi ti onal ly , t he pol icy prov ide d th a t B o rd e r co u ld na m e ad d it io n a l in su re d s u n d e r th e po lic y if it d id so in w rit in g. Ri cardo Ri v er a ow ned a boat cal led La Neg ri ta, and i n 1998, he b ro ug ht it to Border for repai rs
. A c c o rd i n g t o a n i n v o i c e fo r w o r ki tp e r

fo r me d , B o rd e r

c h a rg e d a fe e l a b ele d “mar ine i nsurance. ” Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at this pract ic e w as adopted from Border ’s pr ior
ow ners, and i t i s a co mmon pract ic e for shi py ards. H e tes tif ie d t h a t Border ch arg ed 4. 5 per centof the c ostof re pai rs to cov er the cos t of mar ine ins urance for the boats

. Gonz ale z tes ti fied th at he had oral ag re ements w it h the ow ners o f the boat s repai re d at Border that
re q uired hi m to p ro vide insurance cov erag e for the b oats

. He cl ar ified that“ itw as und erstoo d tha t w e we re r e s p o n sible for the b oat s w hile the y w ere ou t of

the water.” Mi chael Sw etnam, Border ’s i nsurance ex per t, als o tes ti fied th a t i t w as cus tomar y for shi py ards to as sume l iab il ity to ind emnify

the boat ow ners “ if anythi ng happen s t o the boat or to an y bod y

on the boa t w hen thatperson ’s boatis i n the ir care , c u s t o d y o r control. T hat ’s all done o n a ha ndsh ake . . . .” On M ay 11, 1998, Er nest o Lopez , a Border employ ee, w as w eld ing i n the freez erT h e o r ig in a l la w s u it w a s d is m is s e d w ith o u t p r e j u d ic e
. T h e L o p e z f a m ily r e f ile d th e u n d e r lyin g s u it 3 on Febr uar y 16, 200 0. 4 room o f L a Negri ta an d w as elect rocute d. Borde r had an emp loyee injury trust f und , w hich pai d for Lopez ’s f uneral and pai d hi s w ido w a few w eeks ’ sal ar

y . How ev er , Bo rd er

di d not
car ry w or ker ’s co mpensat ion co v er ag e. Lopez ’s famil y fil ed th e under ly ing w ro ng ful deat h sui t i n C amero n C ounty dis tr ic t c our t ag ain st Border , Bo rd er ’s sh ar ehol ders, and R iv era. 3 Theyal leg ed th at Border ’s and R iv era’s neg li g ence re sul ted i n Lopez ’s el ect ro cut ion and death. The Lo pezfamil y furth er al leg ed th at B order

w as undercapi tal iz ed and w as desi g ned and st ru ctu re d as a means of per petrati ng fraud and av oid in g i ts le g al obligation s. As a result, the Lop ez fam ily argued tha t the Borde r shareho lders w ere liable for their dam ages. Riv era f iled a cross-claim againstBorde r, b u t n o t a gainst Borde r’s shareho lders. Ri v era al leg ed th at he ente re d i nto a co ntractw it h Border that prov ide d or impl ied that “a ny c l ai m fo r i nj ur y o r d ea th o f em pl oy ee s , w or k ers , ag en ts , i nv i te es , an d/ or s ub
- c on trac tors of [Borde r] performin g w ork on bo ard the [La] Negri ta w ould be insured, defend ed and pa id for by [Bo rd er], and t hat [ Ri v era] w oul d be hel d har mles s a nd i ndemni fied by [Borde r] from any li ability . . . .” Border and it s s hare h old ers s oug ht i nsurance cov erag e from S t. Paul for t he damag es cl aimed by

the Lopezfamil y . Ri v era als o demanded cov erag e direct ly from St. P a u l

. R i v e r a c l a i me d t h a th e ha d an ora l ag r e e me n tw h e r e b y B o rd e r a g r e e d t o i n d e mn i fy h im . A d d it io n a lly, Ri vera cla im e d th a t B o r d e r ch a rge d hi m fo r in su ra n ce by in clu d in g a charge for ma rine insuran ce on his billing invoices, which he claim ed was w ritten evidence of a cont ra ct or

ag re ement t o i ndemni fy him. St. Paul denied both req uest s for co v erag e.5

Border and Ri v era fil ed s uitag ain st St. Paul i n C amero n C ounty di str ic t c our

t, and St . Pa ul
re mov ed th e c ase to federal cour t on Febr uar

y 2, 1999. St. Paul m ov ed for

summary

judg ment in the f ederal cov erag e suit , arg uin g thatthe policy d id notprovi de co v erage. Th e fede ral district court interpret ed th e insuran ce cont ract. It held thatex clusion J preclu ded cov erage for Borde r’s and its sh a re h olde rs’ potent ial l iab il ity

for L opez ’s deat h bec ause Lopezw as an empl oy ee. Addi ti onal ly , t he
cour t hel d tha t t he “ inc ide ntal co ntract s” ex cept ion to ex cl usi on J w as “no t desi g ned for the
sw eepi ng ty pe of oral ind emnific ati on ag re ement al leg ed by Border and Ri v era.” Add itiona lly , the court he ld tha t such a n inde mn if ication agreeme nt w ould not be v alid und e r f e d e ra l maritime law beca use it w ould not m eetthe “clear an d un equiv ocal” sta ndard. See Randa ll v. Chevro n USA, In c. , 1 3 F

. 3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 5 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 )

. F i n a ll y, the court held tha t Riv era did not qualif y as an additio nal i nsure d un der the policybeca use he was not de signated as such by a w ritten agreem ent

. Th e cou rt note d, ho w ever, that “if Riv era be liev es he contract ed for ‘additio nal insu red’ s t atu s w ith Bord er, his reme dy is a br each of contractac ti on ag ain st Border for breac h of

its cont ra ct to proc ur e i nsurance. ” For all these rea sons, on Feb ruary 12, 200 2, th e fede ral district c o u rt g ra n t e d St. Pa ul’s moti on for summar

y j udg ment. On Febr uar

y 23, 2001, w hil e the cov erag e s uitw as pendi ng and before t he federal dis tr ic t c our

t re ndered summar

y jud g ment, Border

and it s s harehol ders fil ed a thi rd -p arty pet ition againstEnglish Mari ne in th e w rongf ul dea th act ion. Borde r and its share hold ers all eg ed v ar iou s c auses of act ion , i ncl udi ng breach of contract , breach of f idu ci ar y duty , andT he t r i al cour t gr ant ed sum m ar y j udgm ent and di r ect ed ve r di ct s on sev er al of Bor der ’ s cause s of 4 a c ti o n , a n d th o s e o rd e rs h a v e n o t b e e n a p p e a l e d to th i s C o u rt. 6 v iolation s of

the T exas Dece ptive T rade P ractices Act. On Decem ber 15 , 200 4, Bo rder, 4 Border ’s sh a re h o ld e rs, and R iv era s ettl ed th e Lopezfamil y ’s cl aims ag ain st them for $50 0,0 00. Border’s shareh olde rs, Gonzalez, Barrera, a nd Ga y ma n, ea ch pa id one -third of the s ettl ement amoun t, or $133, 333.34. R iv era di d notpay any money to set tl e the sui t. Ins tead, Border ’s sh ar ehol ders paid on his behal f. Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at t he s ettl ement
mo ney w as pa id to settle “[t] he law suit against Bo rder Shipyards and La Negrita, and ours too, I g uess .” I n ex chang e, t he Lope zplai nti ffs dis mis sed thei r cl aims agai nstBorder , i ts sharehol ders, and R iv era w it h preju dic e. Ri v era then set tl ed w it h Border

. In ex chang e for the p a yment of the s ettl ement t o the Lopezpl ain ti ffs a nd for pay ment of $18, 749.28 for Riv era’s atto rney’s fees, Riv era en tered an agreed judgmen t dismissing his cross-claim ag ain st Border

. B. Trial on the Third-Party Claim Against Englis h Marine The onl y ac ti on l eft pendi ng i n the C amero n C ounty di str ic t c o u rt wa s t he ac ti on ag ain st E n glis h M ar ine by Border and it s s harehol ders. The j ur y w as ask ed to dec ide
w het her En gli sh Marine brea ched a contra ct to provide insuran ce tha t wou l d c ov er Borde r’s li a b il it y fo r a b o a to wn e r’ s n e gl ig e n c e , wh e t h e r E n gl is h M a ri n e b re a c h e d a f id u c ia ry d u t y, and w hether

Eng li sh Ma ri ne eng ag ed i n unc onsc ion abl e c onduc t. The foll ow ing facts relating to the se claims were addu ced a t trial. Per k b eg an w or ki ng in insurance in 1964 and bec ame an i nsurance ag ent i n 1974. In 19 80, she formed Eng li sh Ins urance Ag ency , w hic h s he operated from 1980 unti l 1995. Perk sold m arine insu rance , w hich is a specia liz ed type of insurance . According to Perk,7

the re are few agents in the Brownsv ille area tha t specia liz e in ma rine insur a n c e
. Pe rk focused on s hr imp boat ins urance. Shor tl y after purchas ing Border

i n 1985, the s harehol ders s oug ht i nsurance for th e busi ness , and they

co ntac ted Per k. Gonz ale zw as Border ’s presi dent at t he ti me, and he tes ti fied th at he had the re spons ibi li ty for g etti ng ins urance for the s hip y ard. Acc ordin g to Gonz ale z , he w as unfamili ar w it h i nsurance. H e testi fied that Perk w as w ell know n i n the local shrimp busine ss beca use she sold 80 perce nt of the policies to the local boa t ow ners. He cont act ed her

bec ause of her ex per

ti se. Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at w hen he firs t c ontac ted P er k, she t o ld him that“ she knew
w hat we need ed. ” He state d tha t she ne v er asked w hatkind of insurance the ship y ard
w anted becau se “h e w oul dn’ t know w hat w as needed. ” Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at he reli ed on Pe r kt o g e th i m i n s u r a n c e s u ffi c i e n tt o c o v e r t h e s h i p y a rd ’ s n e e d s
. H e t e s t i fi e d that Perk ha d acce ss to Borde r’s fina ncial records an d w as fam iliar w ith the shipyard’s business beca use, a t som e time a f ter the rela tionsh ip w ith Bord er began, Perk rente d of f ice space from Border

at the s hip y ard. Per k d is puted thi s t est imony

. She c lai med thatw hen s he w as cont act ed by Border in 198 5, Bo rder asked for co v erage for t he boa ts Borde r repa ired w hile the y w ere in the ir
cus tody and cont ro l. Per k cl aimed that Border ask ed for cov erag e for t h e bo ats t h e m s e lve s , a n d n o t h in g m o re
. T h u s , s h e s o ld B o rd e r a “ p ro t e c t io n a n d i n d e m n it y” p o li c y. The pol ici e s that Per k s old to Border w er e for one- y ear

ter ms. Thus, the pol ic ies Per k s old w er e renew abl e ev er y y ear
. Gonz ale ztes ti fied that w hen the poli cy came up for
rene w al, Perk w ould notif y him th at th e po licy

w as ab out t o e x pire. She w ould ask Gonz ale zi f he w anted to renew the pol icy , and he w oul d inst ru ct her to do s o. Gonz ale zC ent ur y Sur pl us Li nes was an i nt er m edi ar y bet ween Engl i sh M ar i ne a nd St

. Paul M er cur y I nsur ance 5 C om pa ny , w hi c h i s s ue d t he po l i c y for t he 19 97 t erm
. 8 sta ted t hat h e c oul d notrecal l a s ing le ti me w hen Pe rk sa t dow n w it h hi m and ex pla ine d the c ov erag es in the p oli cy
. Per k t e s t i fi e d t h a t s h e k n e w t h a t B o rd e r n e e d e d p r e mi s e s l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e, bu t Border di d notas k for that ini ti all y . In 19 88, s he obt ain ed premis es li abi li ty co v erag e and
w or ker ’s co mpensat ion co v erag e for Border

. Later , Bo rd er ’s sh ar ehol ders d eci d ed th at t he
w or ker ’s co mpensat ion co v er ag e w as too e x pensi v e and decl ine d furt her co v e ra g e. Ins tead, Border

creat ed an “i nju ry

trus t f und” for

its emplo y ees to pay

for anyw or k- re lat ed inj ur ies

. In 1995, Per k sol d Eng li sh Ins urance Ag ency to t hr ee ot her ag ents

. How ev er , s he cont inu ed to w or k for Eng li sh Ins urance Ag ency for th re e y ears. Per k t est ified thatdur ing that three y ears, she onl y w or ked on th e s hr imp boat ins urance. Sh e s tated that“ [i ]t w as a spe cializ ed b usine ss[,] an d the y w ant ed n oth ing to do w ith it.” At the end of

199 7, Pe rk purchase d the marine “boo k of busine ss” from English Ins urance Ag ency
. Per k t est ified thata “ book of busi ness ” is a col lec ti on of pol ic ies that
ar e al re ady

i n pl ace, w hic h al low s t he ow ner of the b ook of busi ness to ear n c ommis si ons by rene w ing the existing policies. Perk the n fo rm ed En gli sh Marine Agency, Inc., w hich beg an operati ng on J anuar y 1, 1998. On Januar

y 21, 1998, Border

desig nated Eng li sh Mar ine , Pe rk ’s new ag ency , as i ts agent o f record. On Janua ry 28, 199 8, En gli sh Marine sub mitt ed a n ap plication to Centu ry Sur plu s L ine s on B order ’s behal f to renew the cur re nt pol icy . Acc ordin g to G onz ale z , he 5 did not fill out the appli cat ion for insurance. Rat her , Perk broug ht him the appl ic ati on w it h9

the i nformati on al re ady fil led i n t h e b lan ks , and Gonz ale zsi g ned i t. In the a ppl ic ati on, the re is a space provided for the a pplican t t o an sw er w het her it has an y “[g ]ua rante es,
w arrantie s, [or] hold h armle ss a greem ent s.” T his space was left blan k. Borde r’s i nsura nce ex per t, Sw etnam, tes ti fied th at loo ki ng at the appl ic ati on and cons ide ri ng thatno a nsw er
w as f illed in, it app eare d tha t the age n t “ d id n ’t a sk the questio n if they had an y

hold har mles s o r ind emnity

ag re ements .” He tes ti fied that t he appl ic ati on Eng li sh Ma ri ne fil led out o n Border ’s behal f w as inc omplet e. Acc ordin g to Eng li sh Ma ri ne, Gonz ale z did not ti mely author iz e Per k to re new the existing policy . Th us, on May 1, 199 8, Centu ry

S urplus Line s n otif ied Pe rk that be cause the poli cy

had not b een renew ed, S t. Paul M er cur y Ins urance Compan y

“ has ceas ed to prov ide co v erag e as of 12:01 a.m. C .D .T. Apr il 28, 1998.” G onz ale zthen auth or iz ed Eng li sh Ma ri ne to renew i ts cov erag e. Thus, o n M ay 4, 1998, Eng li sh Ma ri ne not ified Cen tur y Sur plu s L ine s t hat G onz ale zhad author iz ed renew al of t h e pol icy

as q uoted by En glis h M a rine. En g li sh Ma ri ne req uest ed th at C entur y Sur plu s L ine s fax

a bi nder

of ins urance as soon as poss ibl e. Acc ordin g to Per k, a “bi nder” set s forth the c ov erag es that Eng li sh Ma ri ne q uoted. On May 7, 1998, Cen tur

y Sur plu s L ine s s ent P er k t he bi nder of ins urance alo ng w it h
a c ov er l etter

. The cov er

l etter st ate s th a t co verage w as bound w it h St . Pa ul “a s re q uest ed,” and it n o te s that cov erag e w as re q uest ed to bac k d ate t o Apr il 28 w hen t he pr ior pol icy l apsed . Acc ordin g ly , Centu ry Lines r eq uest ed a “n o know n/repor ted los s l etter
s ig n e d b y t h e a s s u re d

. ” T h e le t t e r a ls o in fo rm e d P e rko f a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e p o li c y: The cur re nt S t. Paul w ordin g has been amended w it h re g ard [t o] S ect ion II I, Cl ause X II. Thi s rela tes to Bl anket W aiv er /Addi ti onal Ass ur ed w ordin g
. The new w ordin g reads as follo w s:10 X II. Bl anketW aiv er

/Addi ti onal As sureds Endorsement It is agre ed th at t he U nder w ri ters w aiv e the ir

r ig hts of subrog ati on against an y

person or comp any to wh o m t h e Name d Assure d is obl ig ated by

w ri tten co n tr actto prov ide su ch w aiv er w it h respec t t o thi rd par ty v ess els w hil e bei ng repai re d/c onst ru ct e d b y the Named Ass ur ed. It is further ag re ed that to the extent the N amed As sured i s o bli g ated by w ri tte n c ontractto name any person( s) or

co mpany

as addi ti onal ass ur ed hereunder , t he u n d e rwr it ers a g re e tha t s uch person( s) or com pan y

sh all b e consid ered a s a dditio nal assure ds bu t w ith respe ct to an d w hil e s aid thi rd par ty addi ti onal as sureds v ess els are bei ng re pai re d or

co nst ru cte d. W e don ’t believe this w ould ef fect this accou nt but plea se advise if the re are any q uest ions/co mm ent s. Border g av e Eng li sh Ma ri ne a sta tement of no kno w n c lai ms, w hic h w as forw arded to C entur

y Surpl us Line s o n M ay

7. On the fax

co v er sh eet, Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s e mploy ee, Shel ton C ole man, w ri tes : “F oll ow ing i s t he l etter of no los ses
. New w ordin g does n’tse em to b e a prob l em .” G on z al ezt es ti fi ed t ha t th e ne w w ording was n ote x pl ai ne d to h i m. Sw etnam further

testi fied that, becaus e i t w as sta ndard i n the sh ipy ard i ndust ry to create
v er bal ag re ements to ind emnify boatow ners, Eng li sh Ma ri ne breach e d t he s tandard of
care appl ic abl e to an i nsurance ag ent b y fail ing to dis cl ose to B order thatthos e ty pes of ag re ements w oul d notbe c ov er ed by the pol icy . Spec ific all y , Sw etnam s tated : W hat ty pe of operati on that thes e g entl emen had and t he ty pe th at’ s ty pic al to t he Por

t w here the y

are doi ng peopl e’s boats , pul li ng peopl e’s boat s o ut of the w ate r an d the y

a re d oing h and shake dea ls, indem nity agreem ent s only hands hakes , I thi nk that y ou w oul d hav e an obl ig ati on to tel l the i nsured th at v er bal i ndemni ty

ag re ements probabl y ar en’ t enforc eabl e and that y ou need to do i t i n w ri ti ng , and i f y ou don ’t d o i t i n w ri ti ng , y ou don’ t hav e c ov erag e. I t hin k y ou need to dis cl ose that. Pe rk d isp u te d th is t e st im o n y an d cla im e d sh e exp la in e d th e ne w word in g.11

W it h respec t t o w hether there w as an ag re ement t o i ndemni fy Ri v era, G onz ale z tes ti fied th at i t w as Border ’s pract ic e to form oral ag re ements w it h boatow ners, and i t w as “und erstoo d” thatthe bo ats w ere covered w hile the y w e re o ut of

the water. On crossex aminat ion , t he foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d: D e fe n s e c o u n s e l : Do y ou re m e m b e r b e in g as ked that q uest ion —do y ou remember bei n g as ked the q uest ion , “ Mr

. Gonz ale z , do y ou understa nd th at one of the Bo rder Shipyards ’ a llegations in this par ti cul ar ca se is thatBorder

Shi py ards had an ag re ement w it h t he ow ners o f the La Neg ri ta t o ass u m e thei r li abi li ty , La Neg ri ta’ s l iab il ity for inj ur ies that occ ur re d on that v ess el? ” D o y ou re member bei ng as ked that q uest ion ? G o n za le z: I d o n ’tre m e m b e r, b u tI ’m re a d in g i tri gh tn o w. Defense coun sel: And w hatw as y our an sw er? Gon z alez: I don ’t reme mb er. Defense co unsel : W hat w as y our ans w er on l ine 7? Gonz ale z : “I don’ t t hin k t here w as any ag re ements .” Defense co unsel : Y ou s aid that , di dn’ t y ou? Gonz ale z : Y eah, if i t’ s t here, I sa id it

. Border ’s couns el: Judg e, for the Rul e of Opti onal Compl etenes s, I w oul d as k t he C our

t t hat h e be all ow ed to

— D efe ns e c ou ns el : I w ould b e ha pp y t o r ea d th e ne xt few pages, Judg e. Border ’s couns el: Judg e, the next tw o li nes, w hic h w oul d be li ne 8 throug h l ine 10.

. . . . Gonz ale z : Lin e 8 i s “Oka y. So that’ s n ot y our und erstan ding.” Line 9 is, “No, w e all—it w as a12 common pract ic e among boatow ners.” Border ’s co unsel : He can cont inu e to li ne 14. Gonz ale z : 11, q uest ion , “That ’s w hat— w hat w as a c ommon pract ic e? 1 2, t he ans w er , “ I had menti oned before that to haul the b oat o ut i s c ov er ed by the insuran ce po licy

as long as it i s out of

the water. D e fe n s e co u n s e l : S o i tw a s Bo rd e r Sh i p y a rd ’ s p r a c t i c e t o i n d e mn i fy the b oat o w ners w hen t he boat w as out o f the w ate r? Gon z alez: Yes. Defense couns el: Oka y . But it w asn’ t an oral or w ri tten ag re ement tha t y ou h ad wi th th e bo at owner? Gonz ale z : Ri g ht. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l : So w hat y ou’ re tel li ng t h e j u ryi s t hat ev en thoug h the re w as no ag re ement, Border Shi py ards chos e the pract ic e of doi n g that, o f inde mn if y ing the boa t ow ner? Go n zale z: T h e —re m e m b e r th a t Mr. Ab re go w a s in ch a rge of the rail w ay
. He w as the o ne that t alk ed to the boat ow ners a nd I canno t s ay w hat h e di sc uss ed w i th t he m. De fe n se co u n se l: Bu t t h a t’ s you r un d e rst a n d in g— Gonz ale z : Theydi dn’ t c ome to me and had an ag re ement, oral or w ri tten, w it h me. Defense coun sel: Or w ith Bord er Shipyards? Gon z alez: W ith the comp any either, beca use th ere is no—I can’ t prov e the re w as a w ri tten ag re ement. But they co uld hav e had the a g re ement w it h F ra nk Abreg o. Frank Abreg o di d notmenti on i n hi s t est imony that he h ad an ag ree m ent w it h R iv era. How ev er , he did st ate t hat t he mar ine i nsurance charg e w as “i n c ase someth ing happen ed13

to th e ships. ” Sw etn am also testif ied that, becau se it w as stan dard in the ship y ard indu stry to c re ate v er bal ag re ements to ind emnify boatow ners, Eng li sh Ma rine b re a ched the stan dard o f

ca re a pplicab le to an insuran ce agent by failing to d isclose to Borde r that th ose t yp e s o f a gr e e m e n t s wo u ld n o tb e co ve re d b y t h e p o li c y. P e r ka g r e e d t h a ts h e c o u l d h a v e o b t a i n e d a n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t h a tw o u l d i n d e mn i fy boat ow n e rs for

thei r ow n neg li g ence. G ar y Bec k, Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s i nsurance ex per t, t e s t if ie d t h a th e co u ld t h in k o f s e ve ra l p o li c ie s t h a tco u ld h a ve b e e n so ld t h a two u ld h a ve inde mn if ied th e bo at owners. After both si des pr esent ed ev ide nce, the jur y w as ask ed, “ Di d Border Shi py ards and Engl is h M a ri n e agree tha t English Marine w ould obta in an insu rance policythatw ould protec t s hip ow ners from thei r ow n neg li g ence w hil e the boatw as in th e ca re of Border Shi py ards?” The j ur

y ans w er ed, “ Y es. ” The j ur y then found that Eng li sh Mar ine fail ed to
com ply w ith its agreeme nt. Next, the jury foun d tha t a relation ship of trust and conf iden ce ex is ted b etw een Bo rd er Shi py ards a nd Eng li sh Ma ri ne and that Eng li sh Ma ri ne fail ed to compl y w it h i ts fiduci ar

y d u ti e s. The j ur

y then found thatEng li sh Ma ri ne eng ag ed i n an uncon sc ion abl e c ourse of acti on th at w as a produci ng ca use of damag es to B order Ship y ards. T he jury awarded Bo rder Shipyards $4, 500 for its paymen t of ad litem fees in the w ro ng ful deat h s uit , aw arded $18 ,504. 65 to Border Shi py ards for i ts pay ment of Ri v era’s att or ney ’s f ees, and aw arded each of the sharehol ders $133,333. 34. In ad dit ion , it awarded $115, 000 in atto rneys fees fo r trial and $55 ,00 0 in the event o f a n a p p eal. F inally, the jury

foun d tha t neith er Borde r Shipyards nor its shareho lders, agent s, employ ees, represent ati v es, or se rv ants w er e neg li g ent. The tr ial cour t re ndered j udg ment on th e v erdic t, and t his appeal ens ued.14 II. L egal an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy By its first, second, third, f ifth, and sev enth is sues , Eng li sh Mar ine arg ues that the
ev ide nce is l eg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdic t. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew By i ts firs t, sec ond, thi rd , and fifth is sues , Eng li sh Ma ri ne chal len g es the leg al and factual su ff ic ien cy

of t h e ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s findi ng s o f breac h of cont ra ct, br each of f idu ci ar

y duty , and damag es. The se a re i ss ues on w hic h Border and it s sharehol ders b or e the burden of proof. See Sear s, Ro ebuck

& Co. v. AIG Annuit

y Ins. C o., No. 05- 07- 00758- CV , 200 8 W L 3867513, at * 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as Aug . 21, 2008, no p et. h.) ( hol din g pl ain ti ff

has burden i n breach of contractac ti on to es tabl is h breach) ; Edwar ds
v. Pena, 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 191, 198 ( Te x . A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t

. ) ( h o l d i n g p l a i n t i ff alleging brea ch of

f iduciary du ty bea rs bu rden o f proof ); D alton v

. G eor ge B. Hatley Co. , Inc ., 634 S .W .2d 3 74, 3 76 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1982, no w ri t) ( hol din g pl ain ti ff su ing on cont ract has b urde n to est ablish e x istence of contract ). Und er thes e ci rc umstan ces , w e v iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the
v erdic t t o det er mine w hether the ev ide nce at t ri al w oul d all ow reason abl e and fair-mi nded p e o p l e t o r e a c h t h e v e rd i c t u n d e r r e v i e w . Cit y o f Ke ller

v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 27 (Te x . 200 5). W e “must credit favorable evidence if rea sona ble jurors could , and disregard cont rary ev iden ce un less reason able jurors could no t.” Id. W e w il l sus tai n a chal len g e to t h e l e g a l s u ffi c i e n c y

o f e v i d e n c e o n l y

i f: ( 1 ) t h e r e i s a c o mp l e t e a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e o f a
v ital fact; (2) th e court is b arred by rules of la w o r of e v iden ce f rom giv ing w eight to the only15

ev ide n ce o f

f er ed to prov e a v it al fact; ( 3) the ev ide nce off er ed to prov e a v it al fact i s n o mo r e t h a n a m e r e s c i n t i l l a ; o r ( 4 ) t h e e v i d e n c e es t a b l i s h e s co n c l u s i v e l y th e o p p o s i t e o f a
v it al fact. Id. at 810 . More than a scintilla of ev iden ce exis t s , a nd th e evidence is l egally suffici ent, if the ev ide nce furni shes so me reason a b le b a si s for di ff er ing co ncl usi ons by
re asona ble min ds about a v it al fact's ex ist e n ce. Lee Lewi s C onst r. C o. v . Har ri son , 70 S.W .3d 7 78, 7 82- 83 ( Tex . 200 1)

. How ev er , “ w hen t he ev ide nce off er ed to p ro v e a v it al fact i s s o w eak as to do no more tha n c re ate a mere s ur mis e or sus pic ion of its ex is tenc e, the ev iden ce is no mo re than a scintilla and , in legal ef fect, is no e v iden ce.” F o r d Motor Co. v. Ridg way , 1 3 5 S. W .3 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 (T e x. 20 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Kindred v. Con/ Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 6 1, 63 ( Tex . 198 3) ). By i ts sev enth iss u e , Engl is h M ar ine ch all eng es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the
ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s findi ng that Border and it s sharehol ders w er e not n eg li g ent. Eng li sh Ma ri ne bore the burden of proof on thi s i ss ue. Ins . Networ k of Tex. v. Kl

oesel , N o. 13-0 5-68 0-CV, 200 8 W L 907 479 , at *9 (T ex. App.– Corpus Christi Apr. 3, 20 08, pet. f iled). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e do not s ubst it ute o ur j udg ment for that of the jury ; rathe r, w e v iew

all the evidence in a neu tral lig ht to dete rmine w het her the evi den ce is so w eak or

the findi ng i s s o c ontrar y to the g re at weigh t and preponderance of the evid en c e as to be ma ni fes tl y un j us t, s ho c k th e c on s c i en c e, or c l ea r l y de mo ns trat e bias. See Cit y o f Ke ller

, 168 S.W .3d at 82 6; Golden Ea gle Ar cher y, Inc . v . Jack son , 116 S.W .3d 757, 761 ( Tex . 200 3) ; Pool v. F or d Motor C o. , 715 S.W .2d 629 , 6 3 5 (Te x . 198 6); Villago m ez

v. Rockwo od Sp ecialties, Inc. , 210 S.W .3d 720, 749 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 6, pe t. de nied ).16

E n g l i s h M a r i n e a t t a c k s e v e r y c a u s e o f a c t i o n re v i e w e d b y t h e j u r y . W h e n a p l a i n t i ff
re cei v es fav or abl e findi ng s o n tw o or more the or ies of re cov er y , t he pl ain ti ff

i s e nti tl ed to jud g ment on the t heor

y w hic h affords the g re ates t recov er y . Boy c e Ir on wor k s , In c
. v . Sw

. Tel. C o. , 747 S.W .2d 7 85, 7 87 ( Tex .1988)

. I n thi s c ase, the tr ial co urt aw arded ac tual damag es and at tor ney 's fees, thus i ndi cat ing that Border and i ts sharehol ders recov er ed und er eithe r their breach of contracto r uncon sciona ble con ducttheo ries. W e w ill f irst
a d d re s s E n gl is h Ma ri n e ’s is s u e s c h a ll e n gi n g re c o ve ry un d e r th e b re a c h o f c o n t ra c tt h e o ry. See M ain Pl ace Cus tomHom es, Inc . v . Honake r

, 192 S.W .3d 604 , 6 1 3 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 06, pet. den ied) (rev iew ing D T PA f indings f irst becau se the y af forde d greatest
re cov er y ). B. Breach o f Co nt ract “The ele ments of a br each of c ontract cl aim ar e: (1 ) the ex is tenc e of a v ali d c ontract , (2 ) per formance or

tend er ed per

formance by

the pl ain ti ff , (3) breac h of the cont ra ct by

the def end ant , and (4) dam ages to the p laintif f resu lting f rom tha t breach .” Adam s v. H & H Me at P ro ds. , Inc. , 41 S.W .3d 762 , 771 (T ex. Ap p.– Corpus Christi 20 01, n o pe t.). English Marine att acks the f irst and th ird elem ent s—the ex istence of a v alid cont ract and breach of the al leg ed c ontract

. 1. Exist ence o f a C on tract T he jury w as aske d, “Did Borde r Shipyards and En gli sh Marine ag ree that English Ma ri n e wo u ld o b t a in a n in s u ra n c e p o l i c y t h a two u ld p ro t e c tsh ip o wn e rs f ro m t h e ir o wn neg li g ence w hil e the boatw as in [the] ca re o f B o rd e r Shi py ards?” I t ans w er ed, “ Y es. ”17

English Marine argues tha t the jury ’s answer to this question w as not supp orted by legally
or factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Eng li sh Ma rin e f irst arg ues that itdi d notformal ly ex is t unt il D ecember

31, 1997. T h e re fo re , if

th e re w a s a n y co n tr a ctw it h En glis h Mar in e to ob ta in in su ra n ce co vera ge covering boa t ow ners for their own negligence, i t had to be ent ered into in 199 8. English Marine the n argues tha t the only cont ract tha t could possibly be g lean ed f rom th e record is the ag re ement to author iz e Eng li sh Ma ri ne to re new the pol icy that w as in pla ce for th e y ear 1997. English Marine argues tha t Borde r allow ed its 19 97 p olic y t o e xpire. Th us, “as a matter of law ,” any pr ev iou s off er or re q uest to obtai n a p arti cul ar ty pe of i nsurance lap sed
w it h t h e p r e v i o u s p o l i c y , a n d a n y n e w p o l i c y w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y b e s u bj e c tto new con d i t i o n s
. N o t a b l y , E n g l i s h M a r i n e d o e s n o tc i t e a n y l a w t h a tre q u i r e s t h i s c o n c l u s ion

. Nev erthel ess , En g li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that w hen t he new 1998 pol icy

w as forw arded t o Border , Bo rd er

w as infor med of the ch a n ges to the p oli cy —s peci fical ly , En g li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that Border w as noti fied that the new pol icy re q uired addi ti onal ins ur eds, su ch as b o a to wn e rs , b e a d d e d i n wr it in g. E n gl is h M a ri n e f u rt h e r a rg u e s t h a tt h e e vid e n c e sh o ws tha t Borde r did not ha v e an y agreeme nt to inde m n ify R ivera; thu s, neith er the o ld policy
nor the new

pol icy w oul d hav e c ov er ed Ri v era’s neg li g ence becau se Border fail ed to adeq uatel y

i nv oke the ter ms of t he pol ic ies

. In s ummary , En g li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that the
o n ly co n tr a ctth a t e xist e d w a s t h a t En glis h M a rin e a gre e d to ren e w e xist in g po lic y cove ra ge
w ith the new cond ition th at a d dition al insured s mustbe ad ded in w riting, and English Ma ri ne c ompli ed w it h the co ntract

.18

Add itiona lly , English Marine a rg ues th at be cause there e x isted a n explicit contract to rene w the 19 97 p olicy

w it h t h e a d d itiona l conditio n, th ere can be no implied contract betw een t he parties to obtai n a d ifferent ty pe of pol icy . Nor ca n c onduc t or

co urse of deal ing es tabl is h a d ifferent ag re ement. I n re s p o n s e , B o rd e r a rg u e s t h a t E n gl is h Ma ri n e t a k e s “a n e xc e p t io n a ll y n a rr o w” read ing of

the facts regarding the con tract at issue. B orde r argues tha t English Marine is inverting the sta nda rd of review o f a ju ry verdict by select iv ely discussing t he evidence in the re cord ins tead of v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the jur y verd ict. See Cit y o f Ke ller

, 168 S.W .3d a t 827

. Borde r arg ues th at w hen it first cont acte d Pe rk i n o rder to pu rchase insurance in 1985, she off er ed to prov ide Border w it h her ex per ti se in sel ect ing mar it ime ins urance, off er ed to obta in ins urance suffici ent t o c o ver Bo rd er ’s needs , and represent ed th at s he “k new w h a t th e y n e e d e d.” Bo rd er arg ues that itac cept ed th is offer , y ear after y ear , by pur chas ing i nsurance throug h Per k. Border arg ues that Per k w as w ell aw ar e of it s n eeds beca use sh e ha d acce ss to Borde r and its f inan cial records. Beca use En gli sh Marine did not o btai n s uff ic ien t c ov er ag e for Border , Bo rd er

arg ues that Eng li sh Ma ri ne breache d i ts cont ra ct. I n r e s p o n s e t o E n g l i s h M a r i n e ’ s a rg u me n t t h a t i t d i d n o t ex is t unt il 1997, and therefore no cont ra ct coul d hav e been formed before that ti me, Border poi nts out that E n gl is h Ma ri n e p u rc h a s e d t h e m a ri n e “b o o ko f b u s in e s s ” f ro m E n gl is h I n s u ra n c e A ge n c y,
w hic h i ncl uded B order ’s poli cy
. Border f urther poi nts out that Eng li sh Ma ri ne nev er arg ued that it purch ased onl y

thes e as set s o r pol ic ies , and not the c oncomi tant li abi li ti es, from Eng li sh Ins ur ance Ag ency
.19

W e agree w it h Border

and it s sharehol ders that Eng li sh Mar ine i s mi sappl y ing the sta ndard of

r e view to the fact s. F irst, w e mustj udg e the su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce by compar ing i t t o the ch arg e and ins tr uct ion s t hat w er e actual ly g iv en to the jur

y . See W

alMa rt , In c. v. Stu rg es , 52 S.W .3d 7 11, 7 15 ( Tex . 200 1)

. Eng li sh Ma ri ne obj ect ed to the charg e, a rg ui ng t ha t th ere w as n o ev i de nc e of a c on trac t r eq ui r i ng i t to o bt ai n i nsura nce to prot ect ship ow ners f rom th eir o w n negligence. Ho w ever, En gli sh Marine did no t obje ct
or req uestan i nst ru cti on on the g ro und t hat t he j ur y co uld not cons ide r Per k’ s s tatement s in 1985 as ev ide nce of Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s l iab il ity . Seco nd, English Mar in e d id not object to th e test imo ny f rom Go nzalezthatPerk agreed to provi de insu rance cov erage suf f icient to cov er their nee ds in 198 5. Nor did it ask for any i nst ru cti on to the jur

y thati t c oul d not c o n sid e r this ev ide nce ag ain st Per k’ s n ew a g ency , En g li sh Ma ri ne. In fact , Pe rk tes ti fied th at s he purchas ed th e mar ine “ book of busin ess,” w hich i nclud ed Border’s policies, and she serv iced this boo k of b u s iness throu gh her new ent ity , English Marine. T here w as ne v er any i ndica tion th at th is purchase did no t carry

ov er her previous prom ise to provide insuran ce suf f icie n t t o co v er Borde r’s needs

.Thus, Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s a rg ument i g nores the stand ard of rev iew appl ic abl e to the ju ry ve rd ic t

—wit h o u ta n y in s t ru c t io n o r i n d ic a t io n o t h e rwi s e , re a s o n a b le ju ro rs c o u ld h a ve conc lud ed that Perk ’s statement s i n 1985 that she w oul d obt ain i nsurance for Border and that she “k new wh a t theyneeded ” created a c ontractto procure i nsurance suffici ent for Border ’s needs , w hic h w as car ri ed ov er to Eng li sh Ma ri ne. T h e testi mony by both Go nz al eza nd S w et na m t ha t i t w as a c us to ma r y p r actice of t he s hi py ards t o as s um e re sponsib ili ty for th e boat s a nd any i nju ri es that occ ur re d w hil e the boat s w er e i n theEngl i sh M ar i ne poi nt s t o t est i m ony i n t he r ecor d f r om ot her shi py ar d owner s t hat i t was no t t he l ocal 6 c u s to m a n d p r a c tic e th a t th e b o a t o w n e r s w o u ld b e c o v e r e d f o r th e ir o w n n e g lig e n c e . W e p o in t o u t t h a t t h is evi de nc e m ere l y co nfl i c t s w i t h G on z al ez’ s a nd S w etna m ’ s tes t i m on y . “I t i s the provi nc e o f t he j ury t o res ol ve c on fl i c t s i n t he evi de nc e.” C i t y of Kell er v. W i lson, 168 S. W

. 3d 8 02, 820 ( T ex. 200 5)

. Because we r ev i ew t he ev i dence i n t he l i ght m ost f av or abl e t o t he v er di ct , we m ust assum e t hat t he j ur y di sr egar ded t hi s ev i dence a n d c re d i te d th e te s ti m o n y fro m G o n za l e z a n d S w e tn a m
. I d. 20 shi py ard’s ca re , c ust ody , and co ntro l w as suffici ent t o demons trate t hat w hat B order “n e e d e d ” wa s a n in s u ra n c e p o li c y t h a tp ro t e c t e d t h e b o a to wn e rs f ro m t h e ir o wn neg li g ence. 6 Beca use w e reje ct Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s “t h e o ry” of the cont ra ct cl aim, and all i ts argu m e n t s dep end upo n tha t the ory , w e ho ld tha t the ev iden ce prese nte d at trial could hav e all ow ed reason abl e and fair-mi nded pe opl e to deter mine that a c ontractex is ted. City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d a t 827

. Fur ther more, thi s e v ide nce w as not s o w eak or the oppos ing
ev ide nce so ov er

w hel ming thati t w as manifest ly unj ust

. Acc ordin g ly , t he ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly suffici ent to s ust ain the jur y ’s findi ng thata c ontractex is ted. See i d. at 82 6; Golde n Eag le Archery, In c. , 1 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t7 61; Pool , 7 15 S. W .2d a t 635 ; Vi ll agom ez , 210 S.W .3d a t 749

. Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. 2. Breach o f th e C on tract By its secon d is s u e , English Mari ne a rg ues th at th ere is legally and factu ally ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to s u p p ort t he j ur y ’s findi ng thatEng li sh Ma ri ne fail ed to obta in an ins urance pol icy

for B ord er

thatw oul d protec t s hip ow ners from thei r ow n neg li g ence. En glis h M ar ine arg ues that itprov ide d a p oli cy thatw oul d hav e prov ide d c ov erag e for Ri v era’s neg li g ence if Border had proper ly

named Ri v era as an addi ti onal i nsured unde r the contract . It point s to Perk’s testim ony that th is pro vis io n wa s e x plaine d to Bo rder. Eng li sh Mari ne furt her

cl aims thati t had no k now led g e tha t Bo rd er had oral ind emnity21

ag re ements w it h boatow ners a nd di sput es that thi s w as a c ommon p ra cti ce among the loc al shi py a rd s. Finall y , i t arg ues that Border di d notev en hav e an oral ind emnity ag re ement w it h R iv er a. Border and it s s harehol ders arg ue in re spons e that the tes ti mony es tabl is hed t hat itw as poss ibl e for Per k to ha v e obt ain ed an ins urance cont ra ct that w oul d hav e c ov er ed Ri v era’s neg li g ence. The factthatSt. Pa u l Me rc ur y deni ed th eir

cl aims , and thi s d eni al
w as up held bythe fede ral district c o u rt i n the cov erage suit, de mo nstrat es tha t English Ma ri ne di d notobta in ins ur ance that w as “s uff ic ien t” to cov er thei r needs

. W e ag re e. Both Per k a nd Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s i nsurance ex per t, Beck , admitt ed th at i t w as possib le to ob tain a n insuran ce con tract tha t w ould have cov ered the bo at owners’ neg li g ence. F urther more, Sw etnam tes ti fied th at t he i nsurance appl ic ati on s ubmit ted b y Per k t o Centur

y Surpl us Line s inc lud ed a blan k t hat s houl d hav e been fill ed i n i ndi cat ing
w hether there w er e anyguarantees , w ar ra nti es, or hol d har mles s a g re ements

. Sw etnam tes ti fied th at t he factthat this blank w as left empty indi cat ed to hi m thatPer k n ev er as ked the q uest ion

. Sw etnam an d Gon z ale zboth tes ti fied th at i t w as a c o m m o n p ra cti ce and und erstan ding in the area thatwhen a shipyard p erforme d repa irs on a boa t, the shipyard
ass umed the l iab il ity

for a nythi ng thathappen ed to the boat or to any one on the b oat. H ad Per k a sk ed th e r ig h t q uest ion s, cons is tent w it h her represent ati on th at s he k new w hat Borde r need ed a nd h er p romise to obt ain coverage thatcorrespon ded to tho se ne eds, Per k w oul d hav e k now n tha t Bo rd er needed a po li cy that w oul d not lea v e it at ri sk under t h e s e c ir c u m s t a n c e s
. Ac c o rd in gl y, t h e re wa s e vid e n c e in t h e re c o rd t h a two u ld h a ve all ow ed reason abl e and fair-mi nded pe opl e to conc lud e tha t Eng li sh Ma ri ne breache d i ts cont ra ct. City of K

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

. Fur ther more, thi s e v ide nce w as not s o w eak22

or the oppos ing ev ide nce so ov er w hel ming that i t w as manifest ly unj ust

. Acc ordin g ly , t he
ev ide nce w as leg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s ust ain the jur y ’s findi ng thatEng li sh Ma ri ne br eache d i ts cont ra ct. See i d. a t 826 ; G o ld en Ea gle Arche ry, Inc. , 116 S.W .3d a t 761 ; Pool , 715 S.W .2d a t 635 ; Vi ll agom ez , 210 S.W .3d at 749. Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s s econd i ss ue is ov er ru led

. Be ca u se w e find that the j udg ment c an be sus tai ned on Border and it s sharehol ders’ breach of contracttheory , w e need not a ddress Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s c hal len g es to t he j ur y ’s findi ng s o f breac h of fiduci ar y duty or unc onsc ion abl e c onduc t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. C. Ent it leme ntt o Dam ages By i ts fifth is sue, Eng li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that there is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent
ev ide nce to s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s aw ard of damag es to B ordera n d i ts s h ar ehol ders. The charg e i nst ru cte d the j u ry n o t to “ inc lud e any amount of damag es that re pr esent s funds pai d to set tl e that porti on of the law sui t by

the Lopezhei rs ag ain st Border Shi py ards or

any of its sh ar ehol ders.” I n o th e r words, t he j ur y w as ins tr uct ed th at i t c oul d onl y co nsi der funds pai d by

Border and it s s harehol ders o n R iv era’s behal f. Eng li sh Ma ri ne first arg ues that the ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rtan aw ard of da mag es becau se Border ’s sh ar ehol ders w er e not“ leg all y obl ig ated” to pa y any money to the L opezhei rs on R iv era’s behalf

. E n glis h Mar ine poi nts out that Ri v era as ser

ted a cross -c lai m ag ain st Border itse lf. That cros s- cl aim all eg ed that Bo rd er br eache d an ex pr ess or oral ag re ement to hol d Ri v era har mles s and to ind emnify R iv era. Beca use th e fede ral district court foun d tha t the re w as no t a v alid an d en for c e able23

a gr e e m e n tb e twe e n Ri ve ra a n d B o rd e r, E n gl is h Ma ri n e a rg u e s t h a tRi ve ra c o u ld n o th a ve re cov er ed on his cross -c lai m aga in st Border bec ause the c ro ss -c lai m w oul d hav e been bar re d by

res jud ic ata o r col lat eral est oppel

. Al thoug h the federal di str ic t cour t not ed th at Ri v era c oul d br ing a breach of contractcl aim for Border ’s fail ur e to name hi m as an add itiona l insured unde r the St. Paul insuran ce po licy , Riv era ne v er am end ed h is crossclaim to include thatallegation. Furthermo re, beca use Bo rder is a co rporatio n, and Riv era did not direct ly

su e Border ’s sh ar ehol ders o r all eg e tha t t he s h a re h o lde rs w er e l iab le for the c or porati on’ s o bli g ati ons, Eng li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that the s harehol ders w er e protec ted fr om any

l iab il ity by the cor porate v eil

. Asi de from g eneral law des cr ibi ng co ll ateral est oppel , res jud ic ata, and the cor porate v eil , Eng li sh Ma ri ne does not ci te an y ca ses that suppo rti ts arg ument. In re spons e, B order and it s sh a re h o lders arg ue th at “ set tl ements are not
nece ssarily

ente red into to prote ct def end ant s f rom only th ose claims state d in a plain tif f ’s peti ti on.” The federal dist ri ct cour t rec og niz ed the potenti al for R iv era to br ing a breach of cont ra ct act ion for B order ’s failure to name hi m as an addi ti onal i nsured unde r the ins urance pol icy . Fur

ther more, the Lopezheirs all eg ed that the corp orati on w as a s ham to pe rp etrate a fraud becau se itw as under capi tal iz ed. Border and it s s harehol ders a rg ue tha t Riv era cou ld have am end ed his claim to add the share hold ers on this basis as well. W e ag re e w it h Border

and it s s harehol ders. A s ettl ement i s t he pay ment of money
or a nyth i ng of v al ue t o a c l ai ma nti n ex c ha ng e for a rel ea s e from potent

ial l iab il ity . C & H Nat ion wide, Inc . v. Th o mpson , 903 S.W .2d 315 , 320 (Tex. 1994 ). A defendant is nev er leg all y obl ig ated to s ettl e a c lai m—i f the defendant w er e l eg all y obl ig ated to pa y , i ts li abi li ty
w oul d notbe p otent ial , butac tual , and there w oul d be no re ason for the pla int iff t o “ set tl e.”24

It is ce rt ain ly

pos si ble thatBorder

and it s s har ehol ders c oul d hav e defended t he s uitby Ri v era and ass erted t hat h is cl aims w er e bar re d byco ll ateral est oppel or res jud ic ata. Borde r’s shareho lders could have also argued that an y recovery

against the shareh olde rs
w oul d req uire R iv era to pie rc e the co rp orate v eil

. It is also poss ibl e, how ev er , that the tr ial
cour t w oul d hav e reje cte d the se a rgu m e n ts and t hat a j ur y co uld hav e aw arded a subs tanti all y

l arg er amount to t he Lope zhei rs ag ain st Ri v era. That pos si bil ity i s t he reason that Border

and it s s harehol ders s ettl ed th e c lai m. E ng li sh Ma ri ne’ s arg ument is based on its f law ed p remise thatBorde r and its share hold ers mu st prove that th ey w ere con clusiv ely obl ig ated to pa y

the money

before they

co uld recov er
. Second, E ng li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that the j ur y i g nored th e c our

t’ s i nst ru cti on notto award mon ey pa id to settle t he Lop ez claims against Borde r and its share hold ers. English Marine argues tha t the statu te of limitation s had run on claims by the L ope zfam ily against Border and it s s harehol ders, so the c our t i nst ru cte d t h e jur

y not to c onsi der

any money pai d to set tl e tho se cl aims

. Addi ti onal ly , it arg ues that there is no ev ide nce of the amount of settle m e n t m o ney paid on Riv era’s beh alf . Nev erthe less, the jury aw arde d Bord er’s share hold ers the f ull amo untthey paid to the Lop ez heirs to set tle all the claim s. English Ma ri ne does not ci te a si ng le cas e or anyauthori ty w hats oev er

for its arg ument. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.1 (I). U nde r these circum stan ces, no thing is present ed for our rev ie w. Mc Shane v. Bay Ar

ea Healthc ar

e Gr oup, Ltd., 174 S.W .3d 908, 913 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005) , re v’

d on oth e r gr

o u nds, 2 3 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1 (T e x. 2 0 0 7 ). Ac c o rd in gl y, we
ov er ru le Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s fifth i ss ue. D. Proportionate Responsi bility By i ts sev enth is sue, Engl is h Mar ine arg ues that the e v ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent25

to s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s ans w er

to q u e st io n 8 , whe re the jur y found thatBorder

w as not neg li g ent. Eng li sh Ma ri ne arg ues that Border ’s sh ar ehol ders fa ile d t o r e ad any of the pol ic ies i ss ued t o the m, nev er tol d Eng li sh Ma ri ne w hat ty pe of c ov erag e they desi re d, an d coul d hav e added R iv er a as an a ddi ti onal i nsured butfail ed to do s o. W e hav e already

determi ned t hat t he j udg ment c an be sus tai ned on the b re ach of cont ra ct theor

y , w hic h w as pr esent ed to th e jur y i n q uest ion s 1 and 2 of the jur y ch arg e. Que stion 8, asking abo ut Border’s com para tiv e negligence, w as cond itione d on the jury’ s aff ir mati v e fin din g i n q uest ion s 4 and 5, w hic h as ked w hether Eng li sh Ma ri ne ow ed and br eache d a fid uci ary d u ty to Border

. This i s b ecaus e c ompar ati v e respon si bil ity i s n ot a defense to breac h of

co ntract

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 33. 002 ( Ver non 2008) ( sta ti ng thatChapter 33's comparati v e resp onsi bil ity prov is ion s apply

to tor t ac ti ons o r a ct io n s under

the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act ); B e h r i n g In t ’ l , In c
. v . G r e a ter Hou sto n Bank , 662 S.W .2d 6 4 2 , 6 5 2 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 83, w rit dism’d); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 524 S.W .2d 335 , 337 (Tex. Civ . App .–Dallas 1 975 , w rit
re f ’d n
. r. e
. ). T h u s , a n a f f ir m a t ive f in d in g i n re s p o n s e t o qu e s t io n 8 wo u ld n o th a ve p re ve n t e d a j u d gm e n tfo r B o rd e r a n d i t s sh a re h o ld e rs o n t h e ir b re a c h o f

co n t ra c tt h e o ry, and w e mustov er ru le Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s s ev enth is sue. III . Set tl emen t Credi t By i ss ue s ix , En g li sh Ma ri ne present s a si ng le- parag ra ph arg ument: T h e c o u rt f ailed to credit English Marine w ith the amo unt s paid in settle me nt by Century Surplu s Lines, a settli ng defend ant . All ev iden ce re lev ant t o the credi t w as submi tted to the cour t and the cour

t ac know led g ed it s o bli g ati on to co nsi der thati ss ue. W hen the j udg ment w as entered approx imat ely

11⁄2y ears a fter t he v erdic t, the i ss ue w as not a ddress ed therein and the t ri al jud g e reti re d from t he c our t.26

Eng li sh Ma ri ne does not prov ide anyinformati on about the settl ement w it h C entur y Sur plu s Lin es, nor

does i t prov ide any

ci tati ons to ap p ropri ate a uthor ity . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( I)

. Und er thes e c ircums tanc es, noth ing i s p re sent ed for our rev iew

. Mc Shane, 174 S.W .3d a t 913

. Eng li sh Ma ri ne’ s s ixth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. Conclusion Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Eng li sh Mar ine ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

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

__ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 25t h day

of Nov ember , 200 8.