i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 31 1- CV Richard HER

NA ND EZ , Appellant
v . ALLST ATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANC E COMP ANY , Appellee Fr om the 408th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI -05015 Honora ble Antonia Arte ag a, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 10, 2010 AFF I RMED Ric ha rd He rn and e z a

pp e a ls fr om a sum mary jud g me nt g ra nte d in favo r o f A lls tate County Mu tua l Ins ur anc e Com

pa ny (“ Al lst a te ” ). On

a pp e a l, H e rnand e z co nte nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis mot ion

fo r c on tin

ua nc e and in f ind ingthe re we re no iss ue s o f m a te ri a l fa c t re g ard inghis claims for uninsure d motorist covera g e and f or insuranc e code violations. W e af firm the trial c ourt’s judgme nt.04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 2- F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND Her nandez sued Allstate, alleg ing that Allstate insured the vehicle he was drivingwhen he was involved in an a ccide nt with an uninsured motorist in M i n nesota. Spec ifically , Her nandez alleg ed that an unknown trac tor trailer driven by a third par

ty was spee ding, the reby

tossing ice of

f the tr a ile r o nto He rn and e z’s c ar and caus ing him to l os e c on tr ol a

nd c oll ide wi th o the r v e hic le s. Acc ording to Her

nandez, All state breache d its contra ct by fra udulently discourag ing him fr om filing an uninsured motorist cla i m an d b y denying his uninsure d motorist claim. Further , Her nandez
a lle g e d th a t A lls tate vio late d th e I ns ur anc e Cod e by fa ili ngto pay

the un ins ur e d mo tor ist

c la im. Her nandez also sued f

or common law f

raud. Allstate filed a tr aditional and no-e vi d en ce motion for summary judgme nt, contending Her nandez had no e vidence to support his causes of a ction and produc ing summar y judgme nt evidenc e consisting of He rna n d ez ’s petition, the police re port, Her nandez’s deposition, and the insurance policy . Acc ording to Allstate, the summary judgme nt evidence showed that He rnande z’s
cause s of action failed beca use Hernande z was not involved in an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle a s defined by

the insuranc e policy . Allstate argued that under the policy , in order f or uninsured motorist cover ag e to apply , there must be actua l phy sical conta ct betwe en the motor vehicle ope rate d by

an unknown pe rson and the pe rson i n s u re d
. I n response , Her nandez filed a motion for continuance . Howeve r, his motion was denied, a nd the trial cour

t granted A llstate’s motion for summary

judgme nt.04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON 1. Motion for Cont inuance Whe n a pa rt y mov e s fo r a c on tin

ua nc e on the ba sis that he ha s no t ha d a de qu a te op po rt un ity for discove ry

befor e a summar

y judgme nt motion i s hear d, he mus t fi l e either an af fidavit or a verified m o t i o n for c ontinuance e x plaining the need f or fur ther discove ry . Te nn e c o, In c . v . E nte r. Prods. Co. , 925 S.W .2d 640, 647 (Tex. 1996) . The g rantingor denia l of a motion for c ontinuance is within t he sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showingthe trial court c l ea rly

abused that discretion. Villegas v. Carter , 7 1 1 S
. W
. 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 ( T e x . 1 9 8 6 )
. In decidingwhether

a trial c ourt abused its discre tion in deny ing a motion for continuance seeking additional time to conduct discover y , the Tex as S u p reme Court has consider ed the f ollowing nonexclusive factor s: the leng th of time the ca se has be en on file, the materia lity and purpose of the dis c ov e ry so ug ht, and

wh e the r t

he pa rt y se e kin gthe c on tin

ua nc e ha s e xerc ise d d

ue dil ig e nc e to
o b ta in th e d is c o v e r

y s o u g h t. Joe v. T

wo Thir ty Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 1 4 5 S. W. 3 d

1 5 0 , 1 6 1 ( T e x. 20 04 ); see also T EX . R. C IV . P. 252 (re quiring aff idavit in support of continuance to show reque sted discovery is material and that movant has exercised due diligenc e to obtain discover y ). I n his moti on for continuance, Herna ndez contende d he nee ded additional time to conduct discovery . And, his moti on was ve rified. How ever , he fa iled to show that the discover y he re quested
wa s mate ri a l or

that he ha d e xer c ise d due dil ig e nc e to obt a in it. Thus , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in denying H erna ndez’s motion for continuance
.04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 4- 2. Summary Judgme nt Al l s t a t e f i l e d a t r a d i t i o n a l an d

n o - e v i d e n c e m o t i o nf

o r s u m m ar y j u d g m e n t
. O na

p p e a l, Her nandez ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed in g rantingAllstate’s motion. W e disag ree . To obtain a tra ditional summ ary judgme nt, a par

ty moving f or summary

judgme nt must show that no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exis ts and that the pa rty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66 a (c ); R a n d a ll ’ s F o o d M k ts
. , I n c . v . J o h n son , 891 S.W. 2 d

6 4 0 , 6 4 4 ( T e x. 19 95 ); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). In revie wing the g rant of
a summary judgme nt, w e must indulge ever y rea sonable infe renc e and r esolve a ny doubts in favor of the re spondent. Johnson , 8 91 S.W. 2d a t 64 4; Nixon , 6 90 S .W. 2d a t 54 9. I n a dd iti on , w e mus t assume all evide nce f

avora ble t o t h e re s p o ndent is true. Johnson , 8 91 S.W. 2d a t 64 4; Nixon , 690 S.W .2d at 548-49. A defe ndant is e ntitled to summary judgme nt if the evidenc e disproves as a matter of law at least one element of the plaintiff’s c ause of action. Lear Siegler, Inc . v. Pe rez , 819 S.W .2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). Once the movant has e stablished a rig ht to summ ary j u d gm en t, the burden shifts to the respondent to pr esent evidenc e that would raise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. City of Houston v. Clear Creek

Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979). Under Rule 166a(i), a

party may move for a no-evidence summary judgme nt on the g round that th e re is n o e vid e nc e of on e or mor e e sse nti a l e le me nts of a c la im o r d e fe ns e on wh ic h a n a dv e rs e party would have the burden of proof at trial. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(i). The trial court must g rant the motion un less the re spondent produce s summary judgme nt evidence raisinga g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Id. I n revie wing a trial c ourt’s orde r grantinga no-e vidence summ ar y j u dg ment, we consider the evidenc e in the lig h t m o st favora ble to the re spondent and disre g ard a ll contrary04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 5- evidenc e and inf

ere nces. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 1 18 S.W. 3d 74 2, 75 0- 51 (T e x. 20 03 ). Thus , a no-e vidence summary judgme nt is improperly g rante d if the respondent bring s forth more than a scintilla of probative e vidence to raise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Id. a t 75 1; see T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(i). Allstate’s summary

judgme nt motion allege d that there was no e vidence to su p p ort Her nande z ’s claims for brea ch of c ontrac t, brea ch of the duty of g ood faith and f

air de aling , or violations of the Dec eptive Tra de Prac tices Ac t. Additionally , Allstate’s summary judgme nt argued that Her nandez’s bre ach of

contra ct and bad faith cla ims must also fail under the traditional summary j u d g m e n ts t an d ar d b e c a

u s e H e r n an d e z w a s n o ti n v o l v e d

i nana c c i d e n t

a s d e f i n e d b y t h e p o l i c y . In
essenc e, Alls tate arg ued that all Her nandez’s claims fail because Herna ndez was not involved in an
a c c i d e n tw i t h anu n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s tv e h i c l e a s d e f

i n e d b y t h e p o l i c y. The insura

nce policy

under w hich Her

nandez soug ht to r ecove r uninsured motorist damag es p ro v i d es i nre l ev an tp ar tt h e f o l l o wi n g: PART C -- UNI NSURED/UNDERI

NSURED MOTORI STS C OVERAGE I nsuring Ag ree ment A. We wi ll pa

y dama g e s [that] a c ov e re d pe rson i s l egall y e nti tle d to re c ov e r f ro m th e ow ne r o r op e rator of an unin sure d mo tor

ve hic le be c a us e of bo dil y inj ur

y su sta ine d by a c ov e re d pe rs on , or pro perty damag es, ca

used by an ac cident. The owne r’s or ope rator’ s liabilit y for these damag es must arise out of the ownership, maintenanc e or use of the uninsure d motor vehicle. * * *04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 6- D.I
. “Uninsure d motor vehicle” m ea n s a land m otor vehicle or trailer of any ty pe, 1. To which no liability bond o r p o l i cy ap p l i es at the time of the ac cident, 2. Which is a hit an d ru n v eh i cl e wh o se oper ator or ow ne r c ann ot b e ide nti fi e d a nd wh ic h h its :
a. y ou or any

family member; b
. a ve hic le [tha t] y ouor a ny fa mil y member a re oc cupying; or c. y our cove red a

uto. Thus , th e un ins ur e d mo tor ist pr ov isi on

of the po lic y

de fi nes un in sure d mo tor ve hic le a s a
ve hic le that hit

s (1 ) t he ins ur e d o r a

ny fa mil y me mbe r, (2 ) a

ve hic le the ins ured or any fa mil y member is occ upying or

(3) the c overe d auto. Her e, the only summary judgme nt evidence reg arding the fa cts of the a ccide nt is contained in Her nandez’s deposition. Her

nandez testified that, as he w as dr ivi ng , s ome ic e c ame off a tr act or tra ile r a s it pa sse d h im. Th e ic e c a me in c on ta c t w ith He rn and e z’s tir e , c a

us ingHe rn and e z to l os e c on tr ol o f h is v e hic le . N o pa rt of the tr a ile r e ve r c a me in contact with He rnande z. Thus, it is undisputed that the vehicle He rnand ez claims ca used the
acc ident did not phy sically touch his vehicle. Moreov er , t h e Te x as Supreme Court ha s held that for a n insured to re cover

under the uninsured mot orist provision, actual phy sical conta ct must have oc curr ed. Nationw ide Ins. Co. v. Elchehimi , 249 S.W .3d 430, 435-36 (Te x . 2008) (inter pretingsection 1952.104(3) of the Insuranc e Cod e, wh i ch p rovides that “[t]he portion of a policy form adopte d under A rticle 5.06 or f iled as provided by

Subchapter

B, Chapte r 2301, to provide cover ag e under this subcha pter must: . . . (3) require that, for the insure d to rec over unde r the uninsure d motorist covera g e . . ., ac tual phy sical04
- 09
- 00 31 1- CV

- 7- contac t must have occ urre d betwee n the motor vehicle owned or operated by the unknown per son and the pe rson or prope rty of the insure d”). Be cause the undisputed summary j u dg ment evidenc e shows no ac tual phy sical conta ct
oc c ur re d b e tw e e n He rn and e z’s ve hic le and the ve hic le he c la ims c a us e d the a c c ide nt, He rn and e z is not entitled to recove r under the uninsured motorist provision o f t h i s policy . Thus, Her nandez’s claims ag ainst Allstate must fail, and the trial did not err in gr anting Allstate’s motion for summary judgme nt. C ONCL US I ON We affir m the trial court’ s judgme nt.

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice