Court Opinion

ID: 9762889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:33:32.241675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.307993
License: Public Domain

T.C. CHADICK, Justice (Retired).1
This is an action to collect the face amount of two life insurance policies, each in the amount of $250,000.00, and recover associated relief.
Fredonia State Bank, executor of the estate of Claytor Blake III, deceased, Fredonia State Bank, Commercial National Bank, and Claytor Blake, Inc., hereinafter collectively called the Blake Group, as plaintiffs, sued General American Life Insurance Company, as defendant, in a district court of Nacogdo-ches County. Trial was by jury, and judgment was entered awarding the Blake Group $690,356.14, together with postjudgment interest, costs, etc. The judgment is not wholly satisfactory to any party. The Blake Group appeals and General American urges cross-points of error.
The trial judge submitted fourteen questions for jury determination. Judgment is based upon jury answers to Questions No. 1-4. The jury did not answer Question No. 5. Answers to Questions 6-14 were disregarded on motion for judgment non obstante vere-dicto by General American.
By its response to Question No. 1, the jury found the death of Claytor Blake, III was not *169the result of suicide. The answer to Question No. 2, found that the medical portion, Part II, of the application, or a copy thereof, was not attached to Policy No. 1987228 upon delivery to Blake. A like answer was made to Question No. 3 respecting Policy No. 1987228. By answer to Question No. 4, the jury found that Claytor Blake, III did not misrepresent his medical history in order to obtain life insurance.
By cross-points, General American put in issue the jury’s answers to the first four questions the charge propounded on grounds now to be discussed.
Cross-points ten and eleven raise the issue of no evidence and insufficient evidence to support the jury’s answer to Question No. 1 in the charge. The suicide issue was hotly contested, and numerous witnesses testified. In testing legal insufficiency points, the reviewing court must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the findings, disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518, 622 (Tex.1988); Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965). If there is some probative evidence supporting the jury’s finding, the legal insufficiency point must be overruled. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951).
Factual insufficiency points require consideration of all pertinent evidence to determine whether the proof amounts to more than a scintilla of evidence; if so, the evidence is sufficient. Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1989); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d at 661.
All parties agree that a jury finding that the death of Claytor Blake, III was not the result of suicide rendered inoperative the exclusionary provisions for suicide as pleaded by General American. General American sought an instructed verdict on the issue and objected to its submission to the jury.
The official death certificate showed the cause of death as undetermined. Such document is prima facie proof of the factual information it contains. Buchanan v. American National Ins. Co., 446 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1969, writ refd n.r.e.).
Mr. Blake and his wife, Doris, arrived at the Cotton Eyed Joe Club at about 11:00 p.m. on the evening before Mr. Blake’s death from gunshot wounds which he received the following morning. The club manager testified he saw Mrs. Blake slap her husband as they entered the club. The manager interceded, Mrs. Blake went back outside, and Mr. Blake went to the bar, after stating by way.of apology, “I thought it was settled in the car.” In a short time, the manager saw Mrs. Blake reentering, and left his office and walked with her to the bar. When she reached her husband, his back was to her; she shoved him, causing his drink to spill. Again, the manager interceded. Mrs. Blake leaned over on her husband’s shoulder. The manager thought Mrs. Blake was whispering to her husband, and heard Mr. Blake say, “Woman, did you bite me?”, and firmly grasped her right shoulder, but Mr. Blake did not push, slap, hit, strike, or . otherwise make physical contact with his wife. The couple left the club, but the manager noticed them sitting in their automobile outside when he was closing the club at midnight. The gunshot episode occurred within a couple of hours after midnight.
The gun said to be involved was submitted by police to laboratory examination. The laboratory reported inability to find fingerprints on it. Hand swabs from the person of Mr. Blake were also subjected to laboratory examination. The laboratory was unable to detect gunshot residue (antimony, barium, and lead) on the hand swabs submitted. The report stated:
The absence of gunshot residues on hand swabs is consistent with any of the following conditions.
[[Image here]]
(C) Gunshot residues were deposited, but were removed or reduced due to moisture or wiping of the hands.
(D) The weapon used does not deposit gunshot residues in sufficient quantity for detection on the hands of the persons firing the weapon.
*170Other laboratory tests showed that the gun tested emitted gunshot residue. Mortuary personnel reported that Mr. Blake’s hands were placed in plastic bags and not cleaned before the hand swabbing test procedure occurred. An autopsy report of an external examination of Mr. Blake’s body, aside from a bullet wound to the head, located superficial abrasions of the right chest, suggestive of bite marks.
Mrs. Doris Blake was not tested by police to determine whether her hands showed gunshot residue. She refused to undergo a polygraph examination. Expert opinions were given that the fatal wound was consistent with a struggle over a gun or a scuffle in which Mr. Blake was holding a gun. A licensed investigator and forty-years veteran of the Nacogdoches police department testified as to his investigation, and stated his opinion was that the police homicide investigator’s investigation was slanted in favor of Mrs. Doris Blake.
When the no evidence standard is applied, the foregoing is sufficient to show there is evidence from which reasonable inferences may be drawn to support the jury’s conclusion and finding that Mr. Blake did not commit suicide. General American’s no evidence contention is not well taken, and its Cross-Point No. 10 is overruled.
Consideration of General American’s factual insufficient evidence point requires consideration of all evidence bearing upon the answer to Question No. 1. Scattered through the ten-volume, over 2,000 page, statement of facts is evidence pertinent to the issue. Relevant evidence, other than that already recited, tends to contradict, explain away, or cast doubt upon the verity of evidence supporting the jury’s answer. This is illustrated by four disclaimers accompanying the Department of Public Safety’s laboratory report on gunshot residue. The two that , appear pertinent were recited earlier. There is eyewitness evidence from decedent’s wife, Mrs. Doris Blake, that she observed Mr. Blake shoot himself. Also, there is evidence that Mr. Blake was faced with and was undergoing financial difficulties in the operation of his business, as well as alcoholic addiction and health problems. From all of this, inferences may be drawn that Mr. Blake had mentally stressful problems with the potential of inducing suicide and did cause him to commit suicide.
The probative effect of the contradictory and explanatory nature of the evidence depends upon its credibility. The right to determine credibility lies exclusively with the jury. Under the standards guiding a reviewing court in insufficient evidence review, where all evidence is considered, it cannot be said that the evidence pointed out as supporting the answer to Question No. 1 is factually insufficient. Resolving the conflict shown is a jury function. General American’s Cross-Point No. 11 is overruled.
Under Cross-Points No. 12,13,14, and 15, General American contends the jury’s answers to Questions No. 2 and 3 are immaterial and contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The Blake Group’s reply brief asserts the jury’s answer to Question No. 4 renders answers to Questions 2 and 3 of no effect and moot. Since the Blake Group’s brief does not join issue on the four points of error, they are sustained.
Under Cross-Point 16, General American argues that the record establishes as a matter of law that Mr. Blake misrepresented his medical history in order to obtain the insurance contracts in suit.
The record contains Mr. Blake’s application for insurance dated April 16, 1985, slightly less than seven months before his death on November 7, 1985. Mr. Blake answered “No” to the following questions in his application:
(6) Other than above, have you within the past five years:
[[Image here]]
(b) Had a checkup, consultation, illness, injury or surgery?
(c) Been a patient in a hospital, clinic, sanitorium or other medical facility?
(d) Had electrocardiogram, x-ray, other diagnostic tests?
(e) Been advised to have any diagnostic tests, hospitalization or surgery which was not completed?
*171[[Image here]]
(12) Have you ever been treated for alcoholism or any drug habit?
The jury answered “No” to Question No. 4 in the charge, which asked,
Did Claytor Blake, III misrepresent his medical history in order to obtain life insurance?
In order to find that Claytor Blake, III misrepresented his medical history, you must find each of the following:
(1) Claytor Blake, III made a representation;
(2) that the representation was false;
(3) General American relied upon the representation;
(4) that Claytor Blake, III intended to deceive General American in making the representation; and,
(5) that the representation was material.
The submission is authorized by Mayes v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 608 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.1980). First consideration will be given to Cross-Point No. 16. The record will be analyzed to determine whether it shows as a matter of law that any of the five elements was not proven. The argument under the point narrows the issue to the fourth element of the question, that is, that Claytor Blake, III intended to deceive General American in making the representation. Mr. Blake’s intent is the issue.
Mr. Blake signed a request for admission to Humana Hospital Brentwood in Shreveport, Louisiana, on January 18,1984, approximately two months before he made application for the insurance in suit. The application contained an agreement to give seventy-two hours’ notice of a request for discharge. A psychologist familiar with psychiatric hospitals said the structures are built with a lock system designed to prevent a patient from making an unauthorized departure. Mr. Blake was intoxicated when he arrived and was admitted to the hospital.
His then wife, Sandra Blake, from whom he was divorced in May 1984, provided the admittance personnel with Mr. Blake’s social history. The history record recites, “According to the patient’s wife, the patient is being admitted to the hospital for treatment of alcoholism.... She made the decision to admit the patient to Brentwood upon the recommendation of Dr. Klien.” An attending nurse’s report says, “Wife gave information as she was more reliable than [patient].” A nurse’s report dated January 20, 1984, said, “He insists he is ready to leave the hospital, T never been shut up this long in my life.’ ” Mr. Blake called his wife to pick him up, as he was not going to stay.
Sandra Blake testified that her husband received no treatment at the hospital and quoted his statement that he did not. She said he disagreed with her that he drank too much and never admitted he was an alcoholic. The social history furnished the hospital recounted that Mr. Blake had blacked out during drinking episodes. When Mr. Blake was discharged from the hospital on January 23, 1984, he was advised to take outpatient treatments for alcoholism, but he did not commit himself to do so.
From the indicated evidence and other consistent therewith, reasonable inferences may be drawn that in his mind Mr. Blake did not consider the hospital interlude as hospitalization in any usual sense or his stay as treatment or the attention received as any form of checkup or other test or diagnostic procedure. It may be inferred that when he made the insurance application, he wholly discounted the hospital interlude as treatment, believing himself to be an involuntary prisoner at the hospital, and that any show of cooperation with attendants was an effort to effect release. Inferences also might be drawn that his mind blacked out on much of the hospital episode and he had no memory of it.
This evidence raises an issue of fact regarding intent to deceive General American. No memory of the occurrence or a genuine belief that the interlude was not hospitalization would negate a conscious intent to deceive. The jury answered the intent element of Question No. 4 favorable to the Blake Group. Cross-Point 16 must be overruled.
However, Cross-Point 17 puts in issue the great weight and preponderance of the evidence supporting element five of Question No. 4.
*172A review to determine whether a finding is contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence requires consideration of all the evidence in the record pertinent to the finding to determine whether the finding is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660.
In 1980, Claytor Blake, III and his first wife, Sandra, owned and operated Blake Field Services, a construction business, and M & M Yamaha, a motorcycle dealership. The combined sales of both businesses in 1980 were approximately $540,000.00. In 1985, the combined sales reached $1,200,-000.00. The motorcycle agency accounted for a very small part of the totals. Mr. Blake personally operated the construction business, and Mrs. Blake was in charge of the motorcycle agency.
The operator of the type business Mr. Blake was engaged in is commonly called a “contractor.” Operation includes bidding upon construction jobs and satisfactory performance in compliance with the obligations of a contract and specifications governing a job. Mr. Blake was familiar with the details of contracting and the importance of compliance. His background is that of a seasoned operator with several years of success and expanding business.
In 1984 and 1985, an economic slow-down in the company’s business area was hampering cashflow. Domestic difficulties resulted in divorce from Sandra in May 1984. Mr. Blake took on an extra financial burden in settling the marital estate. The necessity for additional bank credit to sustain business operations became acute. Mr. Blake undertook to restructure his borrowing position and to afford lenders additional security. He dropped a $300,000.00 life insurance policy that was not subject to a suicide exclusionary provision and secured the two policies in suit.
Claytor Blake, Inc. was the owner and beneficiary of the two life insurance policies. Mr. Blake assigned one policy to Fredonia State Bank and the other to Commercial National Blank to secure outstanding loans he had with each of them.
The evidentiary inferences that Mr. Blake did not know or remember any or all of the Humana Hospital Brentwood interlude or that he believed his stay there did not amount to hospitalization is unaided by expert opinion. The jury’s conclusion that Mr. Blake did not intend to deceive by his answer to the questions in the application totally disregards Dr. Klein’s medical record detailing the treatment for high blood pressure, etc., that he had rendered Mr. Blake in the five years preceding Mr. Blake’s death. Nothing in the record casts doubt upon the verity of Dr. Klein’s records.
On consideration of all evidence, the record shows that Mr. Blake had a serious and compelling financial and business driven needs to secure life insurance and that he gave false answers to certain questions in his application for the policies in suit. The jury finding that Mr. Blake did not intend to deceive by his false answers apparently is founded upon inferences drawn from eviden-tiary facts earlier stated in regard to hospitalization. These inferences will be analyzed.
There was evidence that Mr. Blake had been drinking to excess before the hospital interlude; that he had blacked out on occasion following a drinking bout. Black out is understood to mean that he retained no memory of occurrences during the period of inebriation. There is no evidence that these blackouts occurred with every drinking episode. He was intoxicated when admitted to the hospital, but it does not necessarily follow that his memory blacked out as to events there. An inference drawn from such intoxication that he blacked out in whole or in part on that occasion constitutes very weak proof of any fact. An inference that he was held against his will derived from the facts in evidence is likewise very weak. Proof that psychiatric hospitals in general have a restraint system is not proof that this particular hospital restrained Mr. Blake against his will, as the evidence is undisputed that he was permitted to leave when he chose to. The inferences discussed illustrate the weakness of all inferences drawn from the hospital interlude.
When compared and contrasted, the conflicting bodies of evidence, one relative to *173deception and the other to no intent to deceive, it is made plain that the inferences relied upon to show no intent to deceive have little cogency or probative effect, hardly more than a scintilla. On balance, it is clear that the jury’s finding is so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be unjust. General American’s Cross-Point No. 17 is sustained.
The Blake Group’s points of error 1-14 have been examined and are found to be without merit. This very lengthy opinion will not be extended to discuss them in detail. The points are respectively overruled.
A document labeled “Final Judgment” was signed by the trial judge and entered in the trial court on May 14, 1990. A document labeled “Reformed Final Judgment” was signed August 27, 1990, and entered August 28, 1990. In the body of the August judgment, the May judgment does not appear to be alluded to directly or by implication. Counsel for the parties are invited to consider whether the one final judgment provision of Tex.R.Civ.P. 301 is involved. Should a party care to comment, a motion for rehearing will be a convenient medium.
Having concluded that General American’s Cross-Point 17 must be sustained, it follows that the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the case remanded for new trial. It is so ordered.

. The panel before whom this cause was submitted consisted of T.C. Chadick, Associate Justice (Retired) the Supreme Court of Texas. Honorable Gerald T. Bissett, retired justice, Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas at Coipus Christi. Honorable Jackson B. Smith, Jr., retired justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (Vernon 1988).