# S TONE 

# L OUGHLIN 

# & S WANSON 

# , LLP

A TTORNEYS AT L AW

DAN PRICE DPRICE @ SLSAUSTIN

. COM P.O. B OX 30111 A USTIN , T EXAS 78755 512.343.1300 512.343.1385 F AX

WWW

. SLSAUSTIN

. COM December 14, 2015

Via E-Filing Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court of Appeals Third District of Texas P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Re: California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. , Cause No. 03-15-00314-CV, in the 3 Court of Appeals rd Texas, Trial Court No. D-1-GN-09-001010; SLS No. 21744

AMENDED LETTER BRIEF ( adding Certificate of Compliance with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4) Dear Mr. Kyle: During oral argument on December 2, 2015, the Court presented the parties with the question of whether Hill Bros.’ cross-point of appeal is a jurisdictional issue that must be addressed by the Court, irrespective of whether the issue was the proper subject of appeal of the trial court’s summary judgment. This letter brief is provided in response to the Court’s request. Applying a liberal reading to the arguments presented in support of the cross-appeal, the Guaranty Associations acknowledge Hill Bros. raised as an issue whether the Guaranty Associations have standing to sue for breach of contract. Issue Presented on Cross-Appeal Hill Bros.’ issue on cross-appeal alleges “the Guaranty Associations are not proper parties to sue for breach of contract.” 1

Appellee’s Br. at 17. 1

O FFICES L OCATED AT 3508 F AR W EST B OULEVARD , S UITE 200, A USTIN , T EXAS 78731 ACCEPTED 03-15-00314-CV 8219871 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/14/2015 11:47:51 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

# S TO NE 

# L OU GH LI N 

# & S WAN SO N 

# , LL P

A TT O R N E Y S A T L A

W

Stand ing is a Jurisdi ctional Question
Whether a plaintiff has standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction that may be raised for the first time on appea l. Tex. Ass’n of Business v. Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993).
Stand ing in Breac h of

Contrac t Cases
“The g ener al t est for standing in Texas requir es that there ‘(a ) shall be a rea l controve rsy betwee n the parties, which (b) will be actua lly deter mined by the judicial decla ration soug ht.’” Id. (quoting B d

. o f W ater Eng’rs v. City of San Antonio , 283 S.W .2d 722, 724 (Tex. 1955)). A justiciab l e controve rsy exis ts “only if there is a rea l and substantial controve rsy involving a g enuine conflict of tang ible interests and not mer ely a theore tical dispute.” Basic Energy Servs., Inc. v. D- S-B Props., Inc. , 367 S.W .3d 254, 260 (Tex. App.–Ty ler 2011) (citing Bonham State B a nk v. Beadle , 907 S.W .2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995)).

I n brea ch of contra ct case s, this Court has deter mined that the issue o f s t an d i ng is raised when a defe ndant alleg es a plaintiff is: (1) not a party to the contra ct, Hamilton v

. W ashington , No. 03-11- 00594-CV, 2014 WL 7458988, *9 (Tex. App.–Austin Dec

. 23, 2014); (2) not in privity of contra ct w it h th e d e f endant, First-Cit izens Bank & Trust Co. v. Greater Austin Telecomm unications Netwo r k , 318 S.W 3d 560, 566 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010); and (3) not a third party benef iciary to the contra ct, Hamilton , 2014 WL 7458988 at *9. The Guaranty Associat ions Ackn owl edge Hill Bros. Raised an Issue of Stand ing

I n Appellee ’s B rief, H ill Bros. submits the Guara nty Associations are not proper pa rties to sue for brea ch of contra ct because: (1) they do not stand in the s hoes of L eg ion for purposes of enfor cing the Policy , (2) they are not third-par ty benef iciarie s of the Policy , (3) they lack statutory authority 2 3 to sue Hill Br os., and (4) the cause of action the Guar anty Associations alleg e is owned by the 4 L eg ion L iquidator. At oral arg ument Hill Br os. also alleg ed the Guar anty Associations cannot sue 5 beca use they lack pr ivity

of contra ct with Hill Bros. Apply ing a liberal rea ding t o these arg uments, the basic premise asser ted is that the Guar anty Associations do not have standing to sue to enfor ce the Policy beca use neither the Policy nor any statute nor any order g rants the Guar anty Associations L eg ion’s the rig ht to sue Hill Br os. to enfor ce the Policy

. I n making these arg uments, Hill Br os. specific ally raised alleg ations the Court previously define d as issues of standing ( e.g. , lack of privity , lack of third party benef iciary status). Fur

ther, in

Id

. U n l e s s o t h e rw i s e s p e c i fi e d , a s u s e d h e re i n , c a p i t a l i z e d t e rm s s h all hav ing t h e m e a n i n g a s c ri b e d i n 2 A p p e l l e e ’s B ri e f.
Id

. 3

Id

. a t 1 8

. 4

Id

. 5

2

# S TO NE 

# L OU GH LI N 

# & S WAN SO N 

# , LL P

A TT O R N E Y S A T L A

W

alleg ing the brea ch of contra ct claim is owned by L eg ion, Hill Br os. alleg es L egi o n suffe red the injury of Hil l Bro s .’ breach and, t here fore , the Guaranty Associations lack a justiciable interest in the controve rsy
. Be cause the Court has previously deter mined simil ar alleg ations to those prese nted by Hill Br os. on cross-a ppeal raised issues of standing , and beca use Hill Br os. asser

ts the Guar anty Associations lack
a justiciable interest in the litigation, the Guar anty Associations acknow ledg e the cross-a ppeal raised the jurisdictional issue of standing

. 6

Conclusion
Whil e Hill Br os.’ cross-a

ppeal raises issues of standing , for the rea sons stated in Appellants’ Reply Br ief and as prese nted at oral arg ument, the Guar anty Associations respe ctf u lly submit that the crossappea l lacks merit. The Guaranty Associations unquestionably have standing an d ar e p roper parties to sue for brea ch of contra ct in this case.

Ver y truly y ours,
STONE L OUGHL I

N & SW ANSON, L L P

Dan Price DP/rer
G:\SLS\21744\A

ppeal \Draf t s\2015-12-14 GA s' Am

en ded Lett er Bri ef

o n Author i t y t o Sue (f i n al ). wpd Cer tificate of Com plian ce Rely ing on the word count prog ram of the computer prog ram used to p re p are Appellants’ Amended L etter Br ief, the total number of words in this document, excluding words that are not to be counte d under T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9.4(i)(1), is 783.

Dan Price

P l e a s e n o t e , a l t

h o u g h t h e G u a ra n t y A s s o c i a t i o n s a c k

n o w l e d g e t

h e i s s u e o n c ro s s - a

p p e a l ra i s e d t

h e i s s u e 6
o f s t a n d i n g , n o t h i n g h e re i n s h o u l d b e c o n s t ru e d b y t h e C o u rt a s t h e G u a ra n t y A s s o c i a t i o n s ’ a g

re e m e n t t o o r e n d o rs e m

e n t o f a n y a rg u m e n t m a d e b y H i l l B ro s
. i n

s u p p o rt o f i t s c ro s s - a

p p e l l a t e i s s u e
.
3

# S TO NE 

# L OU GH LI N 

# & S WAN SO N 

# , LL P

A TT O R N E Y S A T L A

W

cc: Via E-F ilin g Marnie Mc Cormick Adrian Ciec hanowicz DUGGI NS WR EN MANN & ROMERO, L L P P.O. Box 1149 Austin, Texas 78767-1149

4