COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-09-00177-CV

ROBERT GENE CUNNINGHAM,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF PATRICIA MAUDINE

CUNNINGHAM, DECEASED

APPELLANT

V.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ASSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA, AND 

TEXAS MEDICAL LIABILITY 

INSURANCE UNDERWRITING 

ASSOCIATION

APPELLEES

----------

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

OPINION

----------

This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim against the insurance 

carriers for two defendants in a medical malpractice case. Appellant Robert 

Gene Cunningham, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Patricia 
2

Maudine Cunningham, Deceased, (Cunningham) appeals from the trial court‘s 

order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment 

for Appellees Zurich American Insurance Company, its affiliated company 

Assurance Company of America (collectively Zurich), and Texas Medical Liability 

Insurance Underwriting Association (also referred to as the Joint Underwriting 

Association) (JUA). Because we hold the trial court did not err by granting 

summary judgment for Zurich and JUA, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In a suit brought by Cunningham against Dr. Noble Ezukanma, Dr. Ladi 

Haroona, their employer HealthFirst Medical Group, P.A., and others for medical 

malpractice, the trial court rendered judgment against Ezukanma and HealthFirst, 

jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,041,944.80. The trial court rendered a 

take-nothing judgment on Cunningham‘s claim against Haroona. Ezukanma and 

HealthFirst appealed the judgment against them, and Cunningham appealed the 

take-nothing judgment for Haroona. JUA, the malpractice insurance carrier for 

Ezukanma, deposited policy proceeds in the amount of $236,115.66 into the 

registry of the court on Ezukanma‘s behalf in lieu of a supersedeas bond.

The trial court ordered the parties to attend post-judgment mediation, and 

before, during, and after mediation and while the case was pending on appeal, 

Cunningham, Ezukanma, and HealthFirst engaged in negotiations for a possible 

settlement. JUA and Zurich, the insurance carrier for HealthFirst, were also 

involved in the settlement negotiations. Zurich was represented by Laura 
3

Grabouski. Stephen Johnson represented Haroona, Mike Sheehan represented

HealthFirst, Kevin Carey represented Ezukanma, and John Wilson represented 

JUA. The parties would later dispute whether Carey also represented JUA.

Cunningham‘s attorney, Katherine Youngblood, made a ―take-it-or-leave-it‖ 

demand to Ezukanma and HealthFirst. The demand, which Youngblood said 

would expire at noon on May 23, 2008, was for $650,000 from Zurich plus the 

funds that JUA had deposited into the trial court‘s registry. In exchange, 

Cunningham would sign a release of at least some of his claims; the parties later 

disagreed about whether they had intended for Haroona to be included in the 

release.

On the date of the deadline, Grabouski sent Youngblood an email at 10:29 

a.m. that stated:

This confirms that you have made a ―take or leave it‖ demand to 

HealthFirst and [Ezukanma] and their carriers . . . for payment of 

$650,000 plus the amount . . . currently in the court‘s registry, in 

exchange for a complete release of those parties and dismissal of all 

proceedings against such parties; and further that this demand 

expires at noon today, Friday, May 23, 2008. Based on that 

understanding, Zurich, on behalf of HealthFirst and [Ezukanma], 

agrees to pay [Cunningham] $650,000, provided that such amount is 

combined with payment of [Ezukanma‘s] JUA policy (and upon any 

necessary consents to same), in exchange for [Cunningham‘s] 

complete release of the above parties and dismissal of the 

proceedings. Zurich‘s agreement to do so is further conditioned on 

execution of a satisfactory Rule 11 agreement by counsel . . . and a 

subsequent execution of a more formal agreement and release by 

the parties.

In the days following Grabouski‘s email, Youngblood, Grabouski, and 

Carey exchanged a series of emails and letters that showed a disagreement over 
4

whether Haroona was intended to be included in the release. On May 27, 2008, 

Grabouski sent Youngblood a proposed Rule 11 agreement that, in addition to 

the terms mentioned in her email, included the release of Cunningham‘s claims 

against Haroona. Youngblood struck out the portion regarding Haroona, signed 

the agreement, and returned it. She later prepared an ―Agreement for Release of 

Judgment‖ that Zurich and JUA declined to sign. After Youngblood and 

Grabouski exchanged emails and letters disputing whether Haroona was to be 

included and whether they had a binding agreement, Carey notified Youngblood 

that he was ―convinced that there has not been a  ̳meeting of the minds‘ relevant 

to any settlement‖ in the case and that he would not sign any agreed order 

abating or dismissing the appeal until the parties had ―a valid, fully executed 

[R]ule 11 agreement on file with the [trial court] resolving all claims with 

indemnification to the benefit of [Ezukanma].‖

Cunningham filed suit against Zurich and JUA for breach of contract in 

Dallas County. In October 2008, on Zurich and JUA‘s motion, the Dallas trial 

court transferred that suit to Tarrant County under civil practice and remedies 

code section 15.002(b).1 This breach of contract action is the underlying suit in 

the appeal now before us.

While the breach of contract action was pending, Cunningham, Ezukanma, 

and HealthFirst entered into a confidential settlement agreement regarding the 

 

1

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.002(b) (West 2002).
5

judgment in the malpractice suit. Accordingly, in December 2008, Ezukanma, 

HealthFirst, and Cunningham filed an agreed motion for partial nonsuit in the 

breach of contract suit, seeking dismissal of all claims ―seeking enforcement and 

collection of the [j]udgment which have been or which could have been asserted 

by [Cunningham] against any other party to this suit,‖ including a claim seeking 

the full amount of the judgment from the malpractice action. The motion 

expressly states that the parties did not address Cunningham‘s breach of 

contract claim based on the alleged settlement agreement. The trial court signed 

an order of partial nonsuit in accordance with the motion. Cunningham, 

Ezukanma, and HealthFirst also filed in this court an agreed motion to dismiss 

Ezukanma‘s and HealthFirst‘s appeals in the malpractice suit, which this court 

granted.

In the breach of contract action, Zurich, JUA, and Cunningham all filed 

motions for summary judgment. Zurich‘s motion for summary judgment asserted, 

among other grounds, that Grabouski‘s May 23, 2008 email was a mere offer that 

was withdrawn prior to acceptance; that the email did not meet the requirements 

of Rule 11 of the rules of civil procedure and was therefore not an enforceable 

settlement agreement; and that the email was not signed, prohibiting 

enforcement under Rule 11.

JUA‘s motion for summary judgment adopted by reference Zurich‘s motion 

and also asserted that JUA never entered into a valid contract with Cunningham 

because the email from Grabouski did not bind JUA; that there was no offer, 
6

acceptance, or meeting of the minds between Cunningham and JUA; and that 

the email did not satisfy Rule 11.

Cunningham argued in his motion that the email constituted an acceptance 

of the material terms necessary to constitute a valid contract. The trial court 

denied Cunningham‘s motion and granted Zurich‘s and JUA‘s motions. 

Cunningham now appeals.

II. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

We review a summary judgment de novo.2 We consider the evidence 

presented in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, crediting evidence 

favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding evidence 

contrary to the nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not.3 We indulge 

every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant‘s favor.4 A 

plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on a cause of action if it conclusively 

proves all essential elements of the claim.5 A defendant who conclusively 

 

2

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010).

3Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 

848 (Tex. 2009).

4

20801, Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392, 399 (Tex. 2008).

5See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a), (c); MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 

(Tex. 1986).
7

negates at least one essential element of a cause of action is entitled to 

summary judgment on that claim.6

When both parties move for summary judgment and the trial court grants 

one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should review both parties‘ 

summary judgment evidence and determine all questions presented.7 The 

reviewing court should render the judgment that the trial court should have 

rendered.8

III. Analysis

A. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for Zurich?

In his first issue, Cunningham argues that the trial court erred by granting 

summary judgment for Zurich. When, as here, the trial court grants a summary 

judgment but does not specify the ground relied on for its ruling, we must affirm 

the judgment if any of the theories advanced by the movant have merit.9 In its 

summary judgment motion, Zurich argued that it had never entered into a valid 

contract with Cunningham, that Rule 11 prohibited enforcement of any purported 

settlement agreement, and that the email was not an enforceable Rule 11 

 

6

Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 508 (Tex. 2010), cert. 

denied, 131 S. Ct. 1017 (2011); see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(b), (c).

7Mann Frankfort, 289 S.W.3d at 848; see Myrad Props., Inc. v. Lasalle 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 300 S.W.3d 746, 753 (Tex. 2009).

8Mann Frankfort, 289 S.W.3d at 848.

9Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989).
8

agreement. In its motion, Zurich did not specify whether it sought traditional or 

no-evidence summary judgment and did not reference which subsection of the 

summary judgment rule it relied on. It did, however, set out the standard for 

granting traditional summary judgment. Zurich therefore appeared to move for 

traditional summary judgment, not no-evidence summary judgment. Zurich 

therefore took upon itself the burden of proving its summary judgment grounds 

as a matter of law.

10

 Accordingly, we look at the evidence produced by the 

parties to determine if Zurich met its burden of establishing as a matter of law 

that no contract existed.11

Cunningham argues that the trial court erred if it granted summary 

judgment based on Rule 11. He contends that Rule 11 does not apply because 

this agreement was made after the trial court lost plenary power.

Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states, ―Unless otherwise 

provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any 

suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the 

papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of 

record.‖12 By its own terms, the rule applies only to pending suits.13 

 

10See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).

11See FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 872 (Tex. 

2000) (―When both sides move for summary judgment and the trial court grants 

one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should review both sides‘ 

summary judgment evidence.‖).

12Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.
9

Cunningham argues that Rule 11 does not apply because this agreement was 

made after the trial court‘s plenary power had expired and while the cause was 

on appeal, and therefore the suit was not ―pending.‖

In Kennedy v. Hyde, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Rule 11 is 

applicable to settlement agreements.14 The court did not address what the word 

―pending‖ means in the rule and did not reach the question of whether the rule 

applies to suits in which the trial court‘s plenary power has ended but the cause 

remains on appeal. Nevertheless, we may apply the court‘s reasoning in that 

case, which noted the policy behind the rule, as expressed by the court in 1857 

in Birdwell v. Cox:

Agreements of counsel, respecting the disposition of causes, which 

are merely verbal, are very liable to be misconstrued or forgotten, 

and to beget misunderstandings and controversies; and hence there 

is great propriety in the rule which requires that all agreements of 

counsel respecting their causes shall be in writing, and if not, the 

court will not enforce them. They will then speak for themselves, 

and the court can judge of their import, and proceed to act upon 

them with safety. The rule is a salutary one, and ought to be 

adhered to whenever counsel disagree as to what has transpired 

between them.15

 

13Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey, 858 S.W.2d 388, 393 (Tex. 1993).

14682 S.W.2d 525, 530 (Tex. 1984).

1518 Tex. 535, 537 (1857) (emphasis added).
10

The Kennedy court noted ―the wisdom of the rule,‖ remarking that ―[a]greements 

of counsel in the course of a judicial proceeding which affect the interests of their 

clients should not be left to the fallibility of human recollection.‖16

Rule 11 does not specify that it applies only to suits pending only in the 

trial court.

17

 A reasonable application of the rationale and policy of Birdwell and 

Kennedy dictates that the rule that settlement agreements must be in writing 

should be applied whenever the cause is pending in the trial court or on appeal

and therefore has not been finally determined.

At least one other court of appeals has reached a similar conclusion. In 

Coale v. Scott, the parties‘ dispute over an easement resulted in a judgment for 

the Scotts.18 Years later, the Scotts moved the trial court to enforce the 

judgment.19 The trial court granted the motion.20 The Scotts then filed a motion 

to enforce a Rule 11 agreement, which had been entered into after the trial 

 

16Kennedy, 682 S.W.2d at 530 (quoting Wyss v. Bookman, 235 S.W. 567, 

569 (Tex. Comm‘n App. 1921, holding approved)).

17Tex. R. Civ. P. 11; see, e.g., Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc. v. 

Harris, 348 S.W.2d 37, 40 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1961, no writ) (holding that the 

language in a temporary injunction providing that the injunction shall issue 

―pending final hearing and determination of this cause‖ meant that the injunction 

remained in effect pending final determination on appeal).

18331 S.W.3d 829, 830 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.).

19Id.

20Id.
11

court‘s original judgment had become final.21 On appeal, the Coales argued that 

the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the Rule 11 agreement.22 The 

Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a trial court‘s authority to approve a Rule 11 

agreement does not depend on whether the trial court has plenary power over 

the judgment to which the settlement agreement relates.

23 The court noted that

since a trial court has the continuing power to enforce its judgments 

after they become final, . . . common sense tells us that an attempt 

to have the court enforce its judgment, as was done here, is 

tantamount to the continuation of an aspect of the underlying suit,

i.e. the effectuation of what was adjudicated. So, a settlement 

agreement, like that at bar, executed while the parties were 

attempting to sway the trial court to enforce its judgment logically 

falls within the scope of ―any suit pending‖ for purposes of Rule 11.24

Although our sister court‘s holding determined whether any settlement touching 

an enforcement proceeding would fall within the phrase ―suit pending‖ as used in 

Rule 11, a different scenario from this case, it disagrees with Cunningham‘s 

assertion that the applicability of Rule 11 depends on whether the trial court has 

plenary power over the judgment giving rise to the settlement agreement. In the 

case before us, the underlying medical malpractice case was on appeal, which 

means that it had not been finally disposed of. And unless that judgment was 

 

21Id. at 830–31.

22Id. at 831.

23Id.

24Id. (citations omitted).
12

reversed on appeal, the trial court continued to have authority to enforce it;

25

whether Cunningham would seek enforcement of that that judgment as rendered 

was a matter that the parties were attempting to settle.

Cunningham points to Guidry26 in support of his argument that the suit was 

not pending—and therefore Rule 11 did not apply—because the trial court had 

rendered final judgment and the case was on appeal. But that case does not 

support Cunningham‘s position. In Guidry, one party to a settlement agreement 

filed a motion to enforce the agreement, but the motion was filed in a suit 

between the other party to the settlement agreement and a third party.27 The 

enforcing party was not a party to the suit and did not intervene in the suit.28 

Furthermore, the main target of the enforcing party‘s motion was an entity that, 

although a party to the settlement agreement, was not a party to the suit in which 

the enforcing party filed its motion.29 Accordingly, the court of appeals 

determined that the trial court lacked the power to grant the requested relief.30 

 

25See Kenseth v. Dallas County, 126 S.W.3d 584, 598 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2004, pet. denied) (―The trial court always has authority to enforce its judgments 

and to disburse money held in its registry.‖).

26Envtl. Procedures, Inc. v. Guidry, 282 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

27Id. at 635.

28Id.

29Id.

30Id. at 635–36.
13

The court of appeals did not hold that a suit that is pending on appeal is not 

pending for purposes of Rule 11.

As Cunningham points out, an exception to the writing requirement may 

arise when the parties to an oral agreement do not dispute the existence or the 

terms of the agreement.31 But the parties here disputed both the existence of 

any final agreement and the terms that had been agreed to by the time of the 

email. The exception does not apply.

Cunningham also points out that an agreement that does not conform with 

Rule 11 may nevertheless be enforced on equitable grounds such as fraud or 

mistake.32 But Cunningham does not point this court to anywhere in the record 

where he produced evidence raising a fact issue on an equitable ground that 

would render a nonconforming agreement enforceable.

33

Cunningham argues in his reply brief that requiring compliance with Rule 

11 would give Zurich an unfair advantage because he would be denied payment 

after releases had been given. But that is not what happened here. Grabouski 

 

31See Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2005, pet. denied); see also Kennedy, 682 S.W.2d at 529 (noting that ―an 

undisputed stipulation may be given effect despite literal noncompliance with the 

rule‖).

32See Kennedy, 682 S.W.2d at 529.

33See Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995) (analogizing 

Rule 11‘s writing requirement to the statute of frauds); Meyer v. Tex. Nat’l Bank 

of Commerce of Houston, 424 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. 1968) (stating that to avoid 

application of the statute of frauds on equity grounds requires ―something more 

than a mere wrong or breach of contract‖).
14

sent the email on which Cunningham relies on May 23, 2008, and within a week, 

it was apparent that Youngblood and Grabouski disagreed about whether they 

had a final settlement agreement. Based on his belief that Cunningham, Zurich, 

and JUA had reached an agreement that Zurich and JUA were refusing to honor, 

Cunningham filed this action against them for breach of contract; although the 

record does not reveal when the suit was originally filed, Zurich filed a motion to 

transfer venue and motion to dismiss on June 30, 2008, indicating that 

Cunningham filed suit shortly after the dispute over the email arose. 

Cunningham did not release Ezukanma and HealthFirst until those three parties 

reached a later settlement agreement that all three parties agree exists, and the 

terms of which none of the three disputes, which was entered into after 

Cunningham had already filed the breach of contract suit against JUA and 

Zurich. Zurich thus did not make false promises or representations about 

payment in order to gain releases for Ezukanma and HealthFirst, and then, once 

those releases were obtained, refuse to pay on the ground that the parties did 

not have a signed agreement. Cunningham does not point out any other unfair 

advantage that Zurich gained by the application of Rule 11. We therefore cannot 

say that requiring compliance with Rule 11 resulted in an unfair advantage to 

Zurich.
15

Citing Masi v. Scheel,

34 Cunningham next contends that Zurich waived the 

benefit of Rule 11 because it was required to plead Cunningham‘s 

noncompliance with Rule 11 in order to rely on that rule but did not do so. 

Cunningham also argues that he pled that all conditions precedent had been 

met, Zurich did not plead any unsatisfied conditions precedent, and therefore he

did not have to prove that such conditions had been satisfied. We reject both of 

Cunningham‘s contentions.

In its second amended answer, which was verified, Zurich denied that the 

email was a binding agreement and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory 

judgment that the email did not form a valid and enforceable contract and that 

Rule 11 prohibited its enforcement as a settlement agreement. And in its 

response to Cunningham‘s motion for summary judgment, Zurich argued that the 

email was not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement.35 Thus, unlike the defendant 

in Masi, Zurich denied the existence of a settlement agreement and pointed out 

the alleged agreement‘s noncompliance with Rule 11.

 

34724 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref‘d n.r.e.) 

(―[W]hether or not the oral agreement itself is denied, the failure to plead the 

requirements of rule 11 is a waiver of its benefits.‖).

35See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (―Issues not expressly presented to the trial 

court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on 

appeal as grounds for reversal.‖) (emphasis added); City of Houston v. Clear 

Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 679 (Tex. 1979) (stating that to defeat 

summary judgment, ―the non-movant must now, in a written answer or response

to the motion, expressly present to the trial court those issues that would defeat 

the movant‘s right to a summary judgment‖) (emphasis added).
16

Next, Cunningham contends that Rule 11 does not apply to undisputed 

agreements and that although Zurich disputed the legal effect of the email, it did 

not dispute the fact or terms of the agreement.36 But Zurich did dispute the terms 

of the agreement; since Grabouski sent the proposed Rule 11 agreement to 

Cunningham, the parties have disputed whether Haroona was supposed to be 

included in the settlement. And Zurich also denied that the parties had any final 

agreement at all37 and contended that the email, if it had any effect, was nothing 

more than an offer to settle. We therefore disagree with Cunningham‘s 

argument.38 We hold that any settlement agreement between Cunningham and 

Zurich had to be in writing and signed, as required by Rule 11. We overrule this 

portion of Cunningham‘s first issue.

We next determine whether Zurich produced sufficient evidence to 

establish that no Rule 11 agreement with Cunningham existed, and if it did do so, 

 

36See Anderson, 176 S.W.3d at 689 (stating that when the existence of the 

agreement and its terms are not disputed, the agreement may be enforced 

despite its noncompliance with Rule 11).

37See, for example, Grabouski‘s email to Youngblood on May 28, 2008, in 

which she stated, ―If my letters earlier today and yesterday were not clear 

enough, let me be clear here. You seem to claim that my email of Friday, May 

23 forms the basis of a contract. We disagree for the reasons set forth in my 

correspondence.‖

38See London Mkt. Cos. v. Schattman, 811 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tex. 1991) 

(stating that once the existence of an agreement between attorneys or parties 

concerning a pending suit becomes disputed, ―it is unenforceable unless it 

comports with these requirements.‖).
17

whether Cunningham produced evidence in the trial court sufficient to raise a fact 

issue about whether he had an agreement with Zurich that satisfied Rule 11.39

Zurich pointed out in its summary judgment motion that Cunningham‘s 

breach of contract claim as pled was based on oral communications and on 

Grabouski‘s email. Zurich then asserted that the email was not a binding and 

enforceable Rule 11 agreement because it left ―material matters open for future 

adjustment.‖ Zurich also argued that Cunningham had attempted to change the 

terms of the agreement because when Youngblood signed the proposed Rule 11 

agreement sent by Grabouski after the email, she crossed out the inclusion of 

Haroona in the release.

In her email, however, Grabouski restated the offer made by Cunningham 

to HealthFirst and Ezukanma and their respective insurance carriers and 

acknowledged that the offer contained a promise of release by Cunningham in 

return for the payment of $650,000 from Zurich and money in the court registry 

from JUA. Grabouski then indicated Zurich‘s agreement to those terms on behalf 

of HealthFirst and Ezukanma. She did not mention Haroona at all, either when 

she confirmed her understanding of the terms of Cunningham‘s offer or when she 

accepted those terms for Zurich ―on behalf of HealthFirst and [Ezukanma].‖ 

Because the email contained an agreement to pay in exchange for release of 

 

39See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).
18

liability, it contained the essential terms of a settlement agreement, and Haroona 

was plainly not included.40

But Rule 11 also required a signed writing,

41 and Zurich argued in its 

summary judgment motion that the email was not enforceable because it was not 

signed. The fact that the email is an electronic document does not prevent it 

from being enforceable under Rule 11 because, as Cunningham argues, under 

the uniform electronic transactions act, a contract may be enforceable despite 

the use of an electronic record in its formation, and ―[i]f a law requires a 

signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.‖42 By statute, the term 

―electronic signature‖ ―means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached 

to . . . a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the 

record.‖43 An electronic signature is ―attributable to a person if it was the act of 

the person.‖44 In determining whether the signature was ―the act of the person,‖ 

 

40See Padilla, 907 S.W.2d at 460–61 (holding in a case involving a 

settlement agreement that an agreement to pay in settlement of claims contained 

all the material terms of the agreement); CherCo Props., Inc. v. Law, Snakard & 

Gambill, P.C., 985 S.W.2d 262, 265–66 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) 

(holding that a settlement agreement, in which the appellees promised to pay the 

appellant in exchange for the appellant‘s promise to release them from liability,

contained all the material terms of the agreement).

41See Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.

42Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 322.007 (West 2009).

43Id. § 322.002 (West 2009) (emphasis added).

44Id. § 322.009(a) (West 2009).
19

we look to ―the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, 

execution, or adoption, including the parties‘ agreement, if any, and otherwise as 

provided by law.‖45 Whether the signature was the act of the person ―may be 

shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security 

procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or 

electronic signature was attributable.‖46 The uniform electronic transactions act

―applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to 

conduct transactions by electronic means.‖47 As with determining whether a 

signature was the act of a person, in determining whether the parties agreed to 

conduct a transaction by electronic means, we consider the context and 

surrounding circumstances, including the parties‘ conduct.48

With the statutory requirements in mind, we consider whether Grabouski‘s 

email to Youngblood includes some marking executed or adopted by Grabouski 

with the intent to sign the email. The email does not contain a graphical 

representation of Grabouski‘s signature, an ―s/‖ followed by Grabouski‘s typed 

name, or any other symbol or mark that unequivocally indicates a signature.49 

 

45Id. § 322.009.

46Id. § 322.009(a).

47Id. § 322.005(b) (West 2009).

48Id. § 322.005.

49See, e.g., N.D. Tex. R. 11.1 (―An attorney who submits a document for 

filing by electronic means must place on the document an  ̳s/‘ and the typed 
20

The email does conclude, however, with what is commonly referred to as a 

―signature block,‖ that is, a block of information beginning with Grabouski‘s name 

followed by her contact information.50

There is nothing to show that the signature block was typed by Grabouski 

and not generated automatically by her email client.51 If Grabouski did personally 

type the signature block at the bottom of the email, nothing in the email suggests 

that she did so with the intention that the block be her signature, and 

Cunningham does not direct us to any other place in the record raising a fact 

issue about her intention. And no evidence indicates that the parties agreed to 

conduct the settlement transaction by electronic means. We decline to hold that 

the mere sending by Grabouski of an email containing a signature block satisfies 

the signature requirement when no evidence suggests that the information was 

typed purposefully rather than generated automatically, that Grabouski intended 

the typing of her name to be her signature, or that the parties had previously 

 

name of the attorney, or a graphical signature, in the space where the attorney‘s 

signature would have appeared had the document been submitted on paper.‖).

50See Jill Schachner Chanen, Netting Surfers With A ―Hula‖ Hook, ABA J., 

Sept. 1999, at 78, 79 (describing an email‘s signature block as a block ―detailing 

the sender‘s name, address and other information‖).

51See id. (noting that most email programs ―allow a signature block . . . to 

be built into every message sent‖); but cf. Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355, 

1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding, without discussion of intent to sign, that an 

email ending with a salutation from the sender stating ―Best regards Mike 

Bucher‖ satisfied the statute of frauds because, under California law, a typed 

name is sufficient to constitute a signature).
21

agreed that this action would constitute a signature.52 Because there is no other 

evidence of an electronic signature, the email was not signed, and it therefore 

does not meet the requirements of Rule 11.

Cunningham argues that the trial court erred by overruling his special 

exceptions to Zurich‘s motion for summary judgment. Cunningham excepted to 

Zurich‘s motion as failing to state specific grounds for summary judgment. But 

Zurich clearly asserted that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law 

because any settlement agreement had to comply with Rule 11 and that the 

email did not comply with the rule because, among other reasons, it was 

unsigned. Because we may affirm the summary judgment on this single ground 

that Zurich clearly asserted, any error by the trial court in overruling 

Cunningham‘s special exceptions was harmless.53

We note that in Cunningham‘s reply brief to Zurich‘s sur-reply, he appears 

to argue that the parties later entered into a settlement agreement, thereby 

satisfying the ―more formal agreement‖ and ―satisfactory Rule 11 agreement‖ 

conditions in the email. But those assertions relate to an argument about 

 

52See, e.g., 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 402.412 (2009) (Tex. Lottery Comm‘n, 

Signature Requirements) (categorizing an email as including an original 

signature if the email originates from someone whose personal email address 

has previously been submitted to the commission and the email includes the 

sender‘s name, the associated organization‘s name, and the address of either 

the individual or organization on file with the commission).

53Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); see Carr, 776 S.W.2d at 569 (noting that when a 

trial court‘s order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied 

upon, we must affirm if any of the summary judgment grounds have merit).
22

whether any conditions precedent in the email had been satisfied and do not 

address the point that the email itself was not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement 

because it was unsigned. Cunningham does not direct this court to any evidence 

in the record showing that Grabouski signed a written agreement including the 

terms that Cunningham now seeks to enforce. Accordingly, because the 

agreement Cunningham seeks to enforce does not comply with the requirements 

of Rule 11, we hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for 

Zurich, and we overrule the remainder of Cunningham‘s first issue.

B. Did the trial court err by denying summary judgment for Cunningham 

on his claim against Zurich?

In Cunningham‘s second issue, he argues that the trial court erred by 

denying his motion for summary judgment against Zurich. Because we have 

held that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for Zurich, we 

overrule this issue.

C. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for JUA?

In his third issue, Cunningham argues that the trial court erred by granting 

summary judgment for JUA.

1. Whether The Trial Court Should Have Granted Cunningham’s Motion for 

Continuance

Cunningham first argues under this issue that the trial court should have 

granted his motion for continuance. He asserts that he did not receive the 

minimum twenty-one days‘ notice of JUA‘s second motion for summary judgment 

and hearing. He claims that he received notice on March 2, 2009, when
23

Youngblood‘s postal worker notified her that she had a package on the front 

porch of her home, where she also has her office. The package contained JUA‘s 

motion and notice of the hearing set for eighteen days later on March 20, 2009. 

Cunningham filed a motion for continuance based on inadequate notice, which 

the trial court denied.

In response JUA argues that the package was delivered to Youngblood‘s 

house on February 27, 2009. JUA also argues that leaving the documents on 

her doorstep was a proper method of service, citing O‘Connor‘s Texas Rules in 

support of this assertion. As JUA‘s counsel is aware, O‘Connor‘s does not carry 

the force of law.54 JUA cites no other authority in support of its assertion that 

leaving notice of a hearing on someone‘s front porch constitutes proper service.

However, even if JUA‘s method of service was insufficient, a holding we do 

not need to make here, before this court may reverse the summary judgment on 

such grounds, Cunningham must show on appeal that he was harmed.55 

 

54Bair Chase Prop. Co., LLC v. S & K Dev. Co., 260 S.W.3d 133, 142 n.5 

(Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied) (stating that a treatise is not binding on the 

court of appeals); Simplex Elec. Corp. v. Holcomb, 949 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 1997, pet. denied) (same).

55See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1; Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 

S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998) (stating that notice of a hearing on a summary 

judgment motion is required but is not jurisdictional and holding that the trial 

court‘s error in granting a summary judgment motion without notice of the hearing 

was harmless in that case); see also Meeks v. Spencer, No. 02-05-00266-CV, 

2006 WL 1174229, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4, 2006, no pet.) (mem. 

op.) (holding that the appellant had not shown harm from receiving only twentythree day‘s notice of the hearing instead of the twenty-four days required for 
24

Cunningham does not dispute that he received actual notice of the hearing, and 

he has not shown that he was harmed by receiving only eighteen days‘ notice 

instead of twenty-one or by the trial court‘s failure to grant him a continuance 

based on receiving less than twenty-one days‘ notice. We therefore overrule this 

part of Cunningham‘s third issue.

2. Whether The Trial Court Erred by Granting Summary Judgment On The 

Ground That No Contract With JUA Existed

As one of its asserted grounds for summary judgment, JUA argued that it 

had never entered into a valid contract with Cunningham. Like Zurich, JUA did 

not specify in its motion whether it sought traditional or no-evidence summary 

judgment and did not reference which subsection of the summary judgment rule

it relied on. But because JUA attached evidence to its motion and did not point 

out specifically which elements of his claim for which Cunningham had no 

evidence, JUA appeared to move for traditional summary judgment, not noevidence summary judgment. JUA therefore took upon itself the burden of 

proving the non-existence of a contract.56 We thus look at the evidence 

produced by the parties to determine if JUA met its burden of establishing as a 

matter of law that no contract existed.57

 

service by mail when he had not shown what he could or would have done in the 

missing twenty-four hours).

56See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a.

57See FM Props. Operating Co., 22 S.W.3d at 872.
25

In support of its motion, JUA argued that in Cunningham‘s petition, the only 

writing on which he based his contract claim was Grabouski‘s email and that this 

email did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 11.

JUA directed the trial court to Youngblood‘s deposition, in which she stated 

that the only signed writing that she had with respect to an agreement with JUA 

was the email. JUA also pointed out the portion of Youngblood‘s deposition 

testimony in which she stated that she had not accepted any offer from JUA for 

Cunningham prior to the email on the ground that she would not accept it without 

also having an agreement with Zurich, because she ―wasn‘t going to settle for 

$200,000 a million-dollar judgment.‖ In his response, Cunningham argued that 

he had entered into a valid oral agreement with JUA through Carey, its 

negotiating agent, and that this agreement was confirmed via Grabouski‘s email, 

which itself was orally confirmed and ratified by Carey.

On appeal, Cunningham argues that JUA did not meet its burden to prove 

that no contract existed and that the trial court erred if it granted summary 

judgment on this ground. Cunningham argues that he had an oral agreement 

with JUA through Carey, that Rule 11 does not apply to prevent its enforcement, 

and that if Rule 11 does apply, the email satisfies its requirements.

As with his agreement with Zurich, any settlement agreement between 

Cunningham and JUA had to be in writing and signed, as required by Rule 11. 

Cunningham argues that JUA waived Rule 11‘s applicability because it did not 

plead it and that JUA did not amend its answer to specifically deny 
26

Cunningham‘s compliance with Rule 11 until after the hearing on Cunningham‘s 

summary judgment motion, which Cunningham argues made it untimely. But 

JUA did argue in its response to Cunningham‘s summary judgment motion that 

the email did not satisfy Rule 11.58 JUA therefore did not waive its argument 

regarding Rule 11 by failing to plead it.

As to Cunningham‘s Rule 54 argument,59 assuming that compliance with 

Rule 11 is a condition precedent,60 the question of whether Rule 11 applied and 

whether the email satisfied the rule was raised and argued by both parties 

throughout the trial court proceedings. In its original answer, JUA denied that the 

email on which Cunningham based his claim was signed by JUA. In its 

subsequent amended answers, JUA specifically denied that it had executed an 

 

58See Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d at 679; see, e.g., Roark v. 

Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. 1991) (holding that ―an 

unpleaded affirmative defense may also serve as the basis for a summary 

judgment when it is raised in the summary judgment motion, and the opposing 

party does not object to the lack of a rule 94 pleading in either its written 

response or before the rendition of judgment‖).

59See Tex. R. Civ. P. 54.

60See, e.g., J.P. Ryan Enters., Inc. v. Matthaei, No. 09-06-00237 CV, 2007 

WL 1219443, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 26, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(holding that the trial court erred by applying Rule 54 so as to relieve the plaintiff 

of the burden of proving the elements of his cause of action and to prevent the 

defendant from presenting evidence to challenge the elements); Love of God 

Holiness Temple Church v. Union Standard Ins. Co., 860 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 1993, writ denied) (holding in suit relating to an insurance 

contract that because coverage relates to the agreement itself and is not a 

condition precedent, the plaintiff was not relieved of proving coverage by the 

defendant‘s general denial).
27

agreement with Cunningham and that Cunningham had delivered an executed 

contract to JUA, but it did not specifically deny that the email was signed by JUA. 

JUA nevertheless could and did put on evidence about whether the email 

satisfied Rule 11.61 In its motion for summary judgment, JUA pointed out that

Rule 11 required the agreement to be signed and argued that the email was not 

signed. Cunningham also continued to argue, both in his summary judgment 

motion and in his responses to JUA, that Rule 11 did not apply but that, if it did 

apply, the email satisfied the requirements of the rule. JUA thus did not waive its 

argument that Rule 11 applied and that the email was unenforceable under that 

rule. We therefore consider whether JUA proved as a matter of law that it had no 

enforceable Rule 11 agreement with Cunningham.

With its motion, JUA attached the affidavit of Sally Stewart, a JUA claims 

manager. In the affidavit, Stewart stated that neither Grabouski nor Carey 

represented JUA or had the authority to negotiate a settlement for JUA. 

Cunningham objected in the trial court to Stewart‘s affidavit on the grounds that 

Stewart was not timely or properly disclosed as a witness and that the affidavit 

 

61See Texas Educ. Agency v. Stamos, 817 S.W.2d 378, 387 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (―[W]hile the state of the pleadings relieved 

plaintiffs of putting on proof of their exhaustion of administrative remedies as an 

element of their cause of action, it did not prevent unobjected to evidence on the 

issue serving as a basis for the trial court‘s judgment.‖); see also Occidental Neb.

Fed. Sav. Bank v. E. End Glass Co., 773 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1989, no writ) (holding that even though the bank failed to plead any 

noncompliance with conditions precedent, the issue was tried by consent when 

evidence on the issue was admitted without objection).
28

was conclusory and did not show that she had personal knowledge of the facts 

stated in the affidavit. The trial court overruled Cunningham‘s objections.

Cunningham now argues that the trial court erred by overruling his

objections to Stewart‘s affidavit because it is conclusory and not based on 

personal knowledge. We agree with Cunningham that the trial court should have 

excluded Stewart‘s affidavit on the ground that it was not based on personal 

knowledge. In her affidavit, Stewart stated that she is the claim manager for JUA 

and that she has personal knowledge of the facts stated in her affidavit. She 

then states that although Cunningham claims to have a contract with JUA based 

on Grabouski‘s email, Grabouski is not JUA‘s attorney, is not an agent of JUA, 

and was not given authority by JUA to act on its behalf. She then states that JUA 

did not send Grabouski‘s email and did not approve or ratify it, that JUA did not 

enter into a contract with Cunningham prior to October 2008, and that JUA had 

no verbal settlement agreement with Cunningham prior to October 2008.

Nothing in Stewart‘s affidavit shows a basis for her to have personal 

knowledge of whether JUA has hired a particular attorney, whether JUA has 

given an attorney authority to act on its behalf, whether JUA had approved or 

ratified Grabouski‘s email, or whether JUA‘s attorneys were engaged in 

settlement negotiations with Cunningham. She asserted that she is a claims 

manager, but she does not aver what her job entails or give any indication of how 

the job gives her personal knowledge of the facts she asserts. She did not state, 

for example, that her job required her to be involved in every stage of the claims 
29

process, including all settlement negotiations and all communications by JUA 

attorneys with other parties. That she works on claims filed with JUA is not 

enough to show personal knowledge of the kinds of facts she asserted in her 

affidavit.

JUA presented no other evidence that Carey and Grabouski were not 

authorized to negotiate a settlement with Cunningham on behalf of JUA. That it 

presented no testimony from Carey or JUA‘s attorney Wilson, two individuals with 

personal knowledge of the representations that they had made to Youngblood, is 

striking to say the least. And we note that in JUA‘s answers to Cunningham‘s 

interrogatories, when asked if Carey had authority to negotiate on behalf of JUA, 

it objected and would only answer that the email did not reference any 

negotiations by Carey regarding the JUA funds in the court‘s registry. But 

despite JUA‘s failure to produce competent evidence on this point, the trial court 

had before it evidence that was sufficient to negate the existence of an

agreement satisfying Rule 11.

In her deposition, Youngblood acknowledged that the only signed writing 

she had evidencing a contract was the email. But as we have already held, the 

email was not signed. Furthermore, nothing in the email text indicates JUA‘s 

acceptance of Cunningham‘s offer, only the acceptance of HealthFirst and 

Ezukanma. Thus, even if Grabouski had the authority to negotiate for JUA and 

bind it to an agreement reached in negotiations, this email does not indicate that 

Grabouski was agreeing to any terms on behalf of JUA. Because this email does 
30

not meet the requirements of Rule 11 with respect to JUA and because JUA 

produced summary judgment evidence showing that Cunningham had no other 

writing evidencing JUA‘s agreement that satisfied Rule 11, JUA met its summary 

judgment burden.62 On appeal, Cunningham does not point out any summary 

judgment evidence produced in the trial court that raised a question of fact on the 

existence of any other writing satisfying Rule 11. Accordingly, we cannot say 

that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for JUA.

Cunningham next argues that the trial court erred by overruling his special 

exceptions. Cunningham did not specially except to the part of JUA‘s motion in 

which it asserted as a ground for summary judgment that the email was not an 

enforceable Rule 11 agreement. Accordingly, if the trial court erred by overruling 

Cunningham‘s special exceptions, any such error was harmless.63 We overrule 

the remainder of Cunningham‘s third issue.

D. Did the trial court err by denying Cunningham’s motion for summary 

judgment against JUA?

In his fourth issue, Cunningham argues that the trial court erred by denying 

his motion for summary judgment on his claim against JUA. Having determined 

that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for JUA on 

Cunningham‘s claim, we overrule this issue.

 

62See Frost Nat’l Bank, 315 S.W.3d at 508; see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(b), 

(c).

63See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a).
31

E. Did the Dallas County trial court err by transferring the case to Tarrant 

County?

In his fifth issue, Cunningham argues that the Dallas County district court 

erred by transferring this case to Tarrant County, where venue was lacking, 

based on ―convenience of the parties.‖ He points out that section 15.002(b) of 

the civil practice and remedies code allows transfer of venue for convenience of 

the parties when the trial court makes three specified findings.64 He then notes 

that the trial court in this case did not make those findings. He also argues that 

section 15.002(b) allows transfer to another county of proper venue and that he 

established in the trial court that Tarrant County was not a proper county. Thus, 

he argues, the trial court erred by granting the motion to transfer venue. He also 

argues that this court may review that order despite the language of section 

15.002(c), which states that ―[a] court‘s ruling or decision to grant or deny a 

transfer under Subsection (b) is not grounds for appeal . . . and is not reversible 

error.‖

65

 He argues that the cases discussing section 15.002(b) and (c) involved

cases where transfer was to a proper county, and because transfer in this case 

was not to a proper county, the order is reviewable.

The statute itself and the Supreme Court of Texas‘s opinion in Garza v. 

Garcia66 leads us to a different conclusion. In that case, the defendant moved for 

 

64Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.002(b).

65Id. § 15.002(c).

66137 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. 2004).
32

a transfer of venue to Hidalgo County because all of the events giving rise to the 

claim arose there, and alternatively asked the court to transfer to Hidalgo ―for the 

convenience of the parties.‖67 The trial court granted the motion, and its order 

gave no reasons for granting the transfer, ―and in particular never mentioned the 

term  ̳convenience of the parties.‘‖68 The Supreme Court held that the trial court‘s 

order was beyond review. The court noted the general rule that ―trial judges and 

lawyers need not detail specific findings in every order‖ and stated that it did not 

believe the potential for error or injustice in that case justified making an 

exception to the rule.69 Thus, a trial court is not required to state that it had made 

the three required findings in section 15.002(b) in its order. The court further 

stated that ―it is irrelevant whether a transfer for convenience is supported by any

record evidence,‖ and it noted that, ―[h]ypothetically, a trial judge could state 

there was no evidence for a convenience transfer, but grant it nonetheless, 

and . . . there is very little we could do about it.‖70 Thus, whether Cunningham 

established that Tarrant County was not a proper venue is irrelevant to the 

question of whether we may review the order.

 

67Id. at 38.

68Id. at 41 (Phillips, J. dissenting).

69Id. at 39.

70Id.
33

The statute states that an order granting a transfer for convenience of the 

parties is not reviewable, and it does not condition its application on whether the 

trial court made the findings required under subsection (b) or whether the order 

was supported by evidence.

71

 Under Garza and the plain language of the 

statute, the trial court‘s order is not reviewable by this court. We overrule 

Cunningham‘s fifth issue.

IV. Conclusion

Having overruled all of Cunningham‘s issues, we affirm the trial court‘s 

judgment.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 15, 2011

 

71Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.002(c).