|
APPELATE PRACTICE
Skelton & Woody's expertise in
appellate law benefits our
clients from the beginning. From the moment suit
is filed, we make
sure
that our case strategy
includes looking ahead to
possible appeals by either side.
Our appellate work
includes significant experience
in the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the Texas Supreme
Court, the United States Supreme
Court, as well as Texas Courts
of Appeal throughout the state.
We also handle appeals in other
states and concluded a large
matter in the New Mexico Supreme
Court. Our appellate lawyers are also
involved in the preparation of
amicus briefs and the filing of
specialized appellate
proceedings, such as
applications for writs of
mandamus.
Skelton & Woody has had a
significant role in shaping
insurance coverage law at the
appellate level. For example, in
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. St
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 113
S.W.3d 37 (Tex. App.--Houston
[1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied),
we upheld a summary
judgment for the insurer on a
novel issue involving the
enforceability of limits on
defense costs paid under
"fronting" policies, a form of
self-insurance increasingly
common in large commercial
insurance programs.
In Martin Marietta v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2002
WL 261437 (5th Cir. 2002), St.
Paul's policyholder sought
defense and indemnity in a suit
against it by a downstream
landowner who sued Martin
Marietta for diverting the water
of a stream. The case turned on
whether Martin Marietta's
conduct could be construed as an
"accident" and thus an
"occurrence" under a St. Paul
policy. Urging that the
consequences of water diversion
were inherently foreseeable and
thus not accidental, we obtained
summary judgment, which the
Fifth Circuit upheld. The
decision is significant in that
it is the first opinion in Texas
or the Fifth Circuit to analyze
whether water diversion can be
accidental and in that it also
upheld the district court's "no
indemnity" conclusion before the
underlying case was resolved
because there was "no set of
circumstances" under which
Martin Marietta could call its
conduct accidental.
Victory in Texas Supreme Court
in February 2007
On February 9, 2007, The Texas
Supreme Court issued its opinion
in State Farm Life Insurance
Company v. Martinez,
216 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. 2007),
reversing the Tenth Court of
Appeals’ opinion that unfairly
penalized State Farm for not
choosing and apportioning among
three competing claimants to the
same $500,000 life insurance
proceeds. Eva Ramos and Hamp
Skelton split the oral argument,
held in December 2006. The
unanimous opinion vindicated our
client's decision to file an
interpleader action, paying the
policy proceeds into the
registry of the court, in the
face of conflicting claims by
the deceased's daughter, former
wife (whose divorce decree made
her “irrevocable beneficiary”)
and widow whom the deceased had
attempted to designate as sole
beneficiary. The opinion
clarified how the Texas prompt
payment statute (the former Tex.
Ins. Code Art. 21.55) applies
when insurers who face rival
claims for the same benefits
interplead the funds.
Victory on Appeal on June 15,
2006
The Houston Court of Appeals
[1st Dist.] affirmed summary
judgment for OmniBank and its
former officer in Robert H.
Bishop v. Sadler, OmniBank and
Hardaway, 2006 WL 1669022 (Tex.
App.--Houston [1st Dist.], June
15, 2006). Bishop, who had
guaranteed a loan to purchase a
restaurant, sued the seller, the
bank and the loan officer,
alleging he was fraudulently
induced by all into guaranteeing
the loan. He first brought an
adversary proceeding in
bankruptcy court against the
buyer whose loan he guaranteed,
but lost in that proceeding. Omnibank obtained summary
judgment on collateral estoppel
grounds and the court of appeals
affirmed.
Summary Judgment for bank
client June 6, 2006
In June 2006, Skelton & Woody
obtained a summary judgment for
OmniBank in a lender liability
case brought by a land
developer. The plaintiff, JBTB,
Inc., had borrowed money from
the bank to develop raw land
into residential lots for sale
to a large national homebuilder.
JBTB underbudgeted by
approximately $900,000 and went
back to the bank for an
additional loan, which the bank
made. Disputes arose over the
terms and conditions of the new
loan, the timing of the funding
and certain draw requests. JBTB
sued alleging oral
misrepresentations and breach of
contract. OmniBank moved for
summary judgment and the Travis
County District Court granted
the motion.
Victory on Appeal on January
12, 2006
In Jennings v. State Farm
Lloyds, 2006 WL 66408 (Tex.
App.--Austin, January 12, 2006),
the Austin Court of Appeals
affirmed a case that clarified
the scope of coverage afforded
under homeowners' policies. The
policyholders, who had been sued
by the buyers of their house for
failures to disclose defects,
sought what amounted to
"seller's errors and omissions"
coverage under their homeowner's
policy. The Jennings opinion
clarified the difference between
property damage covered by
homeowner's insurance and
"economic damages" flowing from
failures to disclose or failure
to live up to promises to the
buyers.
Victory on Appeal on
September 7, 2005
In State Farm Lloyds v. Blacklock, 2005 WL 2155635 (Tex.
App.--Waco, September 7, 2005,
pet. denied), the Waco Court of
Appeals agreed with State Farm’s
Daubert/Robinson challenges to
all three of Plaintiffs’ expert
witnesses, reversed the trial
court’s judgment and rendered
judgment for State Farm. This
was an important win for State
Farm in that these three experts
had appeared in scores of cases
against the company. Skelton &
Woody won a similar “reverse and
render” against the same
plaintiffs' lawyer in State Farm
Lloyds v. Mireles, 63S.W.3d 491
(Tex. App.--San Antonio 2001),
also prevailing on a Daubert/Robinson
argument that the trial court
abused its discretion in
permitting an engineering
expert’s testimony.
Appellate Victory in the
Fifth Circuit in May 2005
In Meyers v. State of Texas, 410
F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2005), the
Fifth Circuit reversed the
district court’s dismissal of
this class action filed by
disabled individuals on behalf
of all purchasers of parking
placards for the disabled in
Texas. Skelton & Woody served as
co-counsel with attorneys from
Florida in this case. The
decision frees the class
plaintiffs to pursue their claim
that the state violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act
by charging disabled persons a
fee for disabled parking
placards.
Other Recent Results
State Farm Lloyds v.
Mireles, 63 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 2001, no pet.)
We obtained a reversal of an
adverse judgment following a
jury trial. Mireles is the first
reported decision on application
of the Daubert "junk science"
rule to causation opinions in
insurance coverage litigation.
Finding the policyholder's
engineering expert to have given
"irrelevant and unreliable"
opinions, the Court of Appeals
reversed and rendered judgment.
The opinion is important not
only in the coverage field, but
establishes clear rules for
application of the trial court's
"gatekeeper" functions over
expert opinions in a broader
context. It makes clear that
even where strict application of
the Daubert factors is not
appropriate, the trial court
must nonetheless assure the
"fit" between the expert's
opinion and the facts, and
assure that there is not an
"analytical gap" in the expert's
opinions.
Closner v. State Farm
Lloyds, 64 S.W.3d 51 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 2001, no pet.)
We prevailed in the jury trial
of this case, convincing the
Bexar County District Court to
disqualify Plaintiff's
engineering expert. The jury
also found that Plaintiff's loss
started before the inception of
our client's policy. The San
Antonio Court of Appeals upheld
the judgment in our client's
favor. The opinion is important
to Texas insurance law because:
(a) It is the first published
Texas decision to pull together
the various threads that made
clear that policyholders bear
the burden of proving first
manifestation of a loss during
the policy period, and
(b) Closner is the first
published decision to apply the
"loss in progress" doctrine to a
foundation coverage case.
Butler Weldments, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., et al.
, 3 S.W.3d 654 (Tex.
App.--Austin 1999, no writ.)
Hamp Skelton was asked by more
than fifty insurance companies
to argue an appeal involving
dispute over a $200 million
surplus generated by an assigned
risk pool. Hamp Skelton argued
the appeal before the Austin
Court of Appeals in September
1999. On October 7, 1999, the
court issued the opinion, Butler Weldments, et al. v. Liberty
Mutual Ins. Co., et al., 3
S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.--Austin
1999, no writ) affirming
dismissal of Plaintiffs claims
against the insurers.
Performance Improvement v. State Farm Lloyds
, 974 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 1998)
In Performance Improvement v.
State Farm Lloyds, 974 S.W.2d
135 (Tex. App.--San Antonio
1998), we reversed a $4 million
judgment and established that
the "professional services"
exclusion in standard commercial
general liability policies
unambiguously excluded coverage
for business-related activities
undertaken by the insured. The
court of appeals rendered
judgment for our client.
Sharp v. State Farm Lloyds
, 115 F.3d 1258 (5th Cir. 1997)
)
Likewise, in Sharp v. State Farm
Lloyds, 115 F.3d 1258 (5th
Cir. 1997), we upheld a summary
judgment and obtained a Fifth
Circuit ruling declaring the
foundation exclusion in the
standard homeowners policy to be
unambiguous.
|
|
