Court Opinion

ID: 9925546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 08:08:59.926599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:00.769687
License: Public Domain

In the
                   Court of Appeals
           Second Appellate District of Texas
                    at Fort Worth
                ___________________________
                     No. 02-23-00485-CV
                ___________________________

                     TROY PAK, Appellant

                                V.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, BRITTANY
         MAEGAN PIERPONT, AND MISTY WAY, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 431st District Court
                      Denton County, Texas
                  Trial Court No. 23-11508-431

               Before Womack, Wallach, Walker, JJ.
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Troy Pak filed suit against Appellees State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Company, Brittany Maegan Pierpont, and Misty Way, bringing claims for

purported violations of the Texas Insurance Code (the extra-contractual claims) and

seeking certain declarations regarding his entitlement to underinsured motorist

benefits pursuant to his policy with State Farm (the UIM claim). As best as we can

glean, Appellees later filed a motion for severance and abatement in which they

requested that the extra-contractual claims be severed and abated pending final

resolution of the UIM claim. The trial court signed an order granting Appellees’

motion (the Order). In the Order, the trial court severed the extra-contractual claims

from the UIM claim, ordered that the claims against Pierpont and Way were

dismissed with prejudice, and ordered that the severed extra-contractual claims were

abated until the conclusion of the UIM claim. Pak attempts to appeal from the

Order.1

      On December 20, 2023, we notified Pak of our concern that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal because the Order does not appear to be a final judgment

or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195,

200 (Tex. 2001) (holding that, generally, appeals may be taken only from final

      1
        The Order was signed in trial court cause number 23-6596-431. The Order
stated that the severed extra-contractual claims would be placed in trial court cause
number 23-11508-431.

                                          2
judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute); Davati v. McElya, 530 S.W.3d

265, 266 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 10, 2017, no pet.) (holding that

severed summary judgment was not final and appealable when neither the summary

judgment nor the severance order disposed of all of the parties’ claims against one

another).

      We informed Pak that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal

filed a response by January 2, 2024, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we

could dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. While Pak

has filed a response,2 it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.3

      2
       State Farm also filed a response to our jurisdiction letter. State Farm agreed
with our concern, stating that “[t]here is no final and appealable judgment in this
case.”
      3
         In his response, Pak argues that the trial court could not have severed his
extra-contractual claims from his UIM claim “because the Texas Supreme Court
currently requires them to be tried together” in a bifurcated trial. He relies on In re
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 629 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2021) (orig.
proceeding). That case is distinguishable because the plaintiffs in that case only
brought extra-contractual claims. Id. at 870. Because there were no contract claims to
sever from the extra-contractual claims, bifurcation (rather than severance) was the
appropriate remedy to address State Farm’s concern that an initial trial establishing the
liability and underinsured status of motorists was necessary before its own liability for
the extra-contractual claims could be determined. Id. at 871, 877. Here, in contrast,
apart from his extra-contractual claims, Pak also sought declaratory relief to establish
State Farm’s contractual duty to pay UIM benefits. Thus, severance and abatement—
rather than bifurcation—was appropriate. See In re Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co.,
No. 03-21-00515-CV, 2022 WL 120263, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 12, 2022, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (distinguishing State Farm and holding that “[s]everance and
abatement is appropriate when, as in this case, an insured seeks a determination as to
entitlement to UIM benefits and also brings extra[-]contractual claims against the
insured”).

                                           3
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200; Davati, 530 S.W.3d at 266.

                                                      /s/ Dana Womack

                                                      Dana Womack
                                                      Justice

Delivered: January 18, 2024

                                           4