We review a trial court's decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction to the jury for an abuse of discretion. Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 482 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2008, pet. denied). A trial court must submit such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict.
In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge to a jury finding on an issue on which the appellant did not have the burden of proof, we consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the verdict only if the evidence that supports the jury finding is so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469-70 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied); Bay, Inc. v. Ramos, 139 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) (en banc). In a factual-sufficiency challenge, we must examine both the evidence supporting and that contrary to the judgment.
Plaintiff acknowledges "that it had a duty under Texas law to read the policy it bought and confirm the coverage provided . . . [but] this does not negate Mitchell's duties to become familiar with [Plaintiff's] business and to procure the correct policy." (Dkt. #10 ¶ 23) (citing Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied)). Plaintiff's argument misses the mark.
When challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant must demonstrate on appeal that there is no evidence to support the adverse finding. Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469-70 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied). The appellate court will consider all evidence in the record in a light most favorable to the verdict, crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable fact finder could and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not.
We will consider, weigh, and examine all of the evidence in the record, both in support of, and contrary to, the finding. Insurance Network of Texas v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 470 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied). The district court's finding will be set aside only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.
Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469 & n.27 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet denied) (“[A]n inquiry as to whether [insureds] are legally presumed to have read and have knowledge of the [policy] touches upon a matter that traditionally goes to the issue of contributory negligence.”)
In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge to a jury finding on an issue on which the appellant did not have the burden of proof, we consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the verdict only if the evidence that supports the jury finding is so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469-70 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied). The jury was charged as follows with regard to liability:
In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge to a jury finding on an issue on which the appellant did not have the burden of proof, we consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the verdict only if the evidence that supports the jury finding is so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986) (per curiam); Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469–70 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet. denied); Bay, Inc. v. Ramos, 139 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) (en banc). In either type of factual-sufficiency challenge, we must examine both the evidence supporting and that contrary to the judgment.
When an appellant attacks the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue for which it did not have the burden of proof, the appellant must demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the adverse finding; therefore, Lyons must demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the jury's verdict that he did not suffer a compensable injury. See State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Larkins, 258 S.W.3d 686, 689 (Tex. App.-Waco 2008, no pet.); see also Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469-70 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet. filed). We will consider all evidence in the record in a light most favorable to the verdict, "crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder would and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder would not."
When challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant must demonstrate on appeal that there is no evidence to support the adverse filing. Id.; Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel, 266 S.W.3d 456, 469-70 (Tex.App. 2008, pet. filed). The court will consider all evidence in the record in a light most favorable to the verdict, "crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder would and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder would not."