Opinion ID: 1774526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insurance Code vs. DTPA

Text: Kenneco asserted causes of action under the DTPA and Insurance Code article 21.21. Under each cause of action, Kenneco argued incorporation of the other cause of action. On those issues, Kenneco submitted a single liability question to the jury: Did Johnson & Higgins engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice in its dealings with Kenneco (Armada) on or about November 30, 1982? The parties dispute whether this jury question is properly characterized as an Insurance Code claim or a DTPA claim. That determination must be made before considering the applicable statute of limitations. J & H asserts that Kenneco abandoned its Insurance Code claim and submitted only a DTPA claim to the jury, and therefore the DTPA's two-year statute of limitations applies. J & H's position is not supported by the record. There is no indication that Kenneco waived the Insurance Code claim and proceeded only with its DTPA claim. To support its position, J & H relies on the parties' repeated references to the cause of action submitted to the jury as dealing with unfair or deceptive practices. J & H argues that such language refers to a DTPA cause of action and, thus, indicates that Kenneco submitted the claim under the DTPA. However, article 21.21 also deals with unfair or deceptive practices. Article 21.21 is entitled Unfair Competition and Unfair Practices. TEX. INS.CODE art. 21.21. Section 3 is captioned Unfair methods of competition or unfair and deceptive acts or practices prohibited. Id. § 3. Section 16 provides a cause of action for persons injured by unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. Id. § 16. Clearly, the reference to any unfair or deceptive act or practice in the jury question can refer to an Insurance Code claim as well as to a DTPA claim. J & H also argues that because violations of article 21.21 are incorporated as violations of the DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE § 17.50(a)(4), and because Texas courts have held that the DTPA limitations provision should be applied to all causes of action submitted under the DTPA, see McAdams v. Capitol Prods. Corp., 810 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1991, writ denied), limitations bars this claim since Kenneco did not request that the trial court submit an Insurance Code claim as an alternative cause of action. J & H's argument fails to consider the fact that, while the DTPA does incorporate article 21.21, the converse is also true article 21.21 incorporates certain practices delineated in the DTPA. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Marshall, 724 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1987). Thus, if both DTPA and Insurance Code violations are alleged, but only one cause of action is submitted, that claim is not automatically a DTPA claim. We agree with Kenneco that the jury question is grounded in the Insurance Code because it mirrors the language of article 21.21. Pattern Jury Charge (PJC) 102.14 (1990 ed.), entitled Question for Article 21.21 of the Insurance Code, was the form used for the jury question actually submitted. The jury question language unfair or deceptive act or practice tracks the language of article 21.21, section 16. Also, the definitions provided in the jury charge for unfair or deceptive act or practice [5] unmistakably resemble the Insurance Code. Definition (1) tracks the language of article 21.21, § 4(1) and submits PJC 102.16, entitled Misrepresentation or False Advertising of Policy ContractsInsurance. Definition (2) tracks the language of article 21.21, § 4(2) and submits PJC 102.17, entitled False Information or Advertising Insurance. Definition (3) tracks the language of Insurance Board Order No. 41060 and submits PJC 102.19, entitled Misrepresentations Insurance. Additionally, Question 12 (What amount of the damages you found, if any, ... occurred before December 15, 1984 [two years before the date of the standstill agreement]?) is applicable only to causes of action under the pre-1985 Insurance Code, which excluded recovery for damages incurred beyond a point two years prior to the institution of the action. TEX. INS.CODE art. 21.21, § 16(d) (Vernon 1981). This question would not have been submitted if the underlying liability claim concerned only the DTPA.