HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals today affirmed a take nothing judgment in favor of Elephant Insurance Services in a lawsuit brought over uninsured motorist benefits.
According to the opinion, Johnnie Smith filed suit against Elephant Insurance asserting claims for declaratory relief and for statutory bad faith under chapter 541 of the Insurance Code. Smith sued Elephant as an insurance carrier under a policy providing uninsured motorist coverage for the car he was driving in an accident with an allegedly uninsured motorist.
The opinion states that just after this case was called to trial, the trial court granted Smith’s motion for leave to file his “Third Amended Original Petition.” Smith sued only Elephant. In his declaratory-judgment claim, he asked the trial court to make 13 specified declarations pursuant to the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act that Smith contended were declarations of his rights, status, or legal relationship under the policy.
Smith also sought to recover damages from Elephant based on a statutory-bad-faith claim under chapter 541 of the Insurance Code. He did not assert a claim for breach of the policy.
According to the opinion, a bench trial was held. In his case-in-chief, Smith and his medical expert were the only witnesses who testified. After he rested, Elephant made an oral motion for judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court later signed a written order granting Elephant’s motion for judgment and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on this order and these findings and conclusions, the trial court signed a final judgment that Smith take nothing on his claims. The trial court denied Smith’s motion for a new trial.
“Under the applicable standard of review, the evidence in Smith’s case-in-chief was legally insufficient to support a finding that Elephant engaged in either of the two alleged unfair settlement practices,” the opinion states. “Thus, the trial court did not err in granting Elephant’s motion for judgment as to the Statutory Bad Faith Claim. Because the evidence was legally insufficient to support any of the 13 declarations that Smith requested, the trial court did not err in rendering a take-nothing judgment as to Smith’s declaratory-judgment claim.
“Because Smith has not shown that the trial court erred in rendering judgment that Smith take nothing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Appeals case No. 14-21-00100-CV