Court Opinion

ID: 9652729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:31:05.789305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.643222
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The Appellee, in her motion for rehearing, urges that we erred in holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Miguel Navarrete was in good health at the time of the issuance of the insurance policy. In reaching that decision, we considered all of the evidence set forth in the Appellee’s motion for rehearing. While we recognize that the agent who took the application testified that Mr. Navarrete was able to get around fine, there was also evidence in the record that he had a bad limp. The Appellee testified that her husband had a limp that was very noticeable. We do not believe that any of that evidence was in any way related to the cause of death of Mr. Navar-rete and; therefore, it was not included as part of the controlling facts in our original opinion. A review of all of the evidence including the testimony and exhibits and the findings in the medical records convince us that the jury finding that Mr. Navarrete was in good health when the policy was issued is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
In a supplemental motion for rehearing, the Appellee urges, for the first time, that because of the jury’s answers to questions seven through ten, the Appellant is estopped from asserting a defense of no coverage and no existing policy. First, we note that in the Appellee’s thirteen page original petition there is no allegation of estoppel. Second, in the twenty-one reply points in the Appellee’s brief filed in this case, there is no contention that the jury’s answers to questions seven through ten estop the Appellant from raising the question of good health. Third, we note that counsel for the Appellee did not contend in oral argument that the jury’s answers to any issues constituted an estoppel in this case. Finally, we note that estoppel is defensive in nature and may not be used to create liability where it does not otherwise exist. Hruska v. First State Bank of Deanville, 747 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.1988). Until the Appellee first established the good health of the deceased at the time the policy was issued, no liability ever existed on the policy issued by the Appellant.
The Appellee’s motion for rehearing and supplemental motion for rehearing are overruled.