State Farm Lloyds v. Vega

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Duncan

    No. 13-22-00249-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2024)

    See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); see also Dunn v. Bank-Tec S., 134 S.W.3d 315, 328 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (refusing to scour a voluminous record for evidence supporting the appellant's claims); Lloyds v. Vega, No. 13-16-00090-CV, 2018 WL 1773304, at *13 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. K & K Inez Props. v. Kolle

    No. 13-21-00460-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ("This court does not have a duty to review a voluminous record without guidance from the appellant to determine whether its assertion of reversible error is valid."); see also Lloyds v. Vega, No. 13-16-00090-CV, 2018 WL 1773304, at *13 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  3. Value v. Infinite Play Co.

    NUMBER 13-18-00550-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 4, 2021)

    Additionally, this would be an open door for parties to circumvent the appellate brief page limitations."); see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; see also State Farm Lloyds v. Vega, No. 13-16-00090-CV, 2018 WL 1773304, at *13 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding issue waived where appellant argued: "For the reasons outlined in Issues I, II, and III, there is legally insufficient evidence supporting the judgment on the contract, extra-contractual, and attorney fees claims"); Gonzales v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 13-05-00730-CV, 2006 WL 2327259, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 10, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (refusing to "incorporate arguments presented in other matters" and considering only "the contention discussed in in their brief in support"). Appellants have therefore failed to adequately brief their complaint, and this issue is waived.

  4. USAA Tex. Lloyd's Co. v. Griffith

    NUMBER 13-17-00337-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2019)   Cited 6 times
    Holding evidence of roof's good condition before storm meant a reasonable jury could find the concurrent-cause doctrine inapplicable in rejecting insurer's argument that the insured must segregate damages

    A jury's finding of "knowingly" may be based on evidence that gives rise to an inference that USAA had actual knowledge that its conduct, in this case, failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, was unfair or deceptive. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.152(b); United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. AMJ Invs., LLC, 447 S.W.3d 1, (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. dism'd) (affirming jury's finding of knowingly based upon inference that insurer reneged on agreement to pay roof replacement); AIG Aviation, Inc. v. Holt Helicopters, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 276, 287 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) (finding evidence sufficient to conclude that AIG "knowingly conducted an outcome-oriented investigation"); see also State Farm Lloyds v. Vega, No. 13-16-00090-CV, 2018 WL 1773304, *9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg April 12, 2018, no pet.) (affirming knowingly finding after jury found that insurer refused to pay claim without conducting a reasonable investigation). Griffith also complained that USAA acted wrongfully when it relied on the PTC engineer's conclusion that the roof suffered from preexisting damage—a conclusion that was contrary to photographs captured by USAA's underwriting team just weeks before the storm.