HOUSTON - Yesterday, the First Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing summary judgment ruling in favor of a couple sued by an insurance adjuster who fell in a hole while assessing a Hurricane Harvey claim.
Court records show Dzobibi Ngetich sued Gregory and Joanne Breda for negligence, alleging that an unmarked hole covered with grass on their premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
According to the First Court’s opinion, on Sept. 15, 2017, Ngetich was assigned to assess claims made by a woman under her homeowner’s insurance policy. Ngetich needed to climb onto the roof and the policyholder told her that she wanted to tell her neighbors, the Bredas, that Ngetich would be on her roof. The two women then walked toward the Bredas’ front door, across their front lawn, between the house and the sidewalk.
While walking, Ngetich stepped into a hole with her right foot. She fell face first and allegedly sustained injuries to her face and head, neck, chest, stomach, and knees. Ngetich momentarily lost consciousness due to the shock of the fall.
Court records show the Bredas answered the suit and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, arguing that Ngetich was a trespasser and the only duty they owed her was not to commit gross negligence, and that the facts of the case did not rise to the level of gross negligence.
The trial court granted the motion and Ngetich appealed, arguing in four issues that the trial court erred because there were fact issues as to every element of her premises liability claim; her status as invitee, licensee, or trespasser on the Bredas’ property; gross negligence; and whether the injury occurred on the Bredas’ property.
The First Court found that the evidence shows that the hole did not pose a likelihood of serious injury, objectively, or that the defendant was consciously indifferent to the risk posed by the existence of the hole.
“We conclude that Ngetich had the status of a trespasser and that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively proved that the Bredas did not act with gross negligence,” the opinion states. “We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment, and we overrule all of Ngetich’s issues.”
Case No. 01-21-00502-CV