Court Opinion

ID: 9770208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:54:22.485555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.767520
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority states: “[I]t is undisputed that appellants’ failure to answer the lawsuit was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, but was due solely to a mistake or accident.” I disagree. There is ample evidence for the trial court to have concluded the failure to answer was the result of conscious indifference.
The majority’s discussion of appellees’ counsel’s actions and/or lack of them is beside the point. Appellee had no duty other than to properly serve appellant. This was done. In determining whether there is conscious indifference, one must look to the actions of appellant, Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Tex.1984). The only action of appellant was receiving the suit and forwarding it to their insurance agent. It is uncontroverted there was no inquiry regarding retaining an attorney or filing an answer to the suit. A reasonable interpretation of the evidence before the trial court could deem this inaction conscious indifference. In accordance with Tex.R.Civ.P. 99(c), the citation provided the following notice: “YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the Clerk who issued this Citation by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were served this Citation and Petition, a Default Judgment may be taken against you.”
I believe it reasonable to require defendants to do more than simply forward suit papers to their insurance agent or carrier. While doing so may meet some contractual requirements of the insurance carrier, it does nothing to meet the requirements of Rule 99(c). If a defendant takes some action regarding employing an attorney or filing an answer then there is attempted compliance with the rule. The rule requires nothing less and apparently neither did the trial court here. Nor should this court. Even in Strackbein, 671 S.W.2d at 39, “Prewitt believed that the papers were in the attorney’s office and that the suit was being handled by the attorney.” This is a clear bright line, easily recognized and easily followed.
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.