Marqueth Wilson v. Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-14-00220-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 27, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Marqueth Wilson filed a lawsuit against Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and private nuisance following an incident on June 24, 2012, where an object from another vehicle caused damage to his car and personal injuries. Wilson alleged Colonial failed to timely pay benefits, miscalculated damages, and denied coverage under the uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist provisions. After discovery, Colonial moved for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, asserting it had complied with the insurance policy and that Wilson lacked evidence for his claims. The trial court granted Colonial's motion without specifying the grounds. Wilson, representing himself on appeal, contended that there were factual disputes regarding his claims and argued the court erred in denying his presence at the hearing and in ruling on certain motions. Wilson also waived his private nuisance claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Colonial had provided necessary documentation supporting its compliance with policy terms and that Wilson's claims of negligence and bad faith were dependent on a finding of breach, which was not established.

Wilson’s appeal addresses the inadequacy of the record, particularly concerning his failure to file a response to the summary judgment motion in the trial court. His claim that the mailbox rule should apply is rejected because the documents were returned due to insufficient postage and labeled as a security threat, thus not meeting the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Consequently, the mailbox rule was not applicable, and since the trial court never received the documents, Wilson cannot argue for their filing under this rule. 

Additionally, documents attached to his appellate brief, which are not part of the official record, cannot be considered by the appellate court. Wilson was notified of deficiencies in his brief, particularly the lack of appropriate citations to the clerk’s record, but his amended brief continued to reference the same non-compliant documents. 

Regarding the merits of the no-evidence summary judgment, the appellate court begins by examining the matter under the no-evidence standard since the trial court’s order did not specify which motion was granted. Colonial demonstrated compliance with the insurance policy and that no breach occurred; thus, the burden shifted to Wilson to provide evidence of a material fact dispute, which he failed to do. The record shows that he did not submit any response or evidence to the trial court regarding Colonial's claims, and the only evidence he cited in his appeal was inadmissible.

Wilson's breach of contract claim against Colonial was dismissed through a no-evidence summary judgment because he did not raise any factual issues. The court cited precedent affirming that a lack of response to a motion for summary judgment justifies such a ruling. Consequently, Wilson's claims for negligence and bad faith also failed, as a breach of contract must be established to pursue these claims. The threshold for bad faith necessitates an independent tort alongside the breach, which Wilson did not demonstrate. The court ruled that inquiry into the alleged bad faith and negligence was unnecessary since the breach of contract was not established.

Wilson's claims regarding his absence at a dispositive hearing were deemed without merit. The court stated that inmates do not have an absolute right to be present in every civil proceeding, and it is the inmate's responsibility to justify their presence. The summary judgment hearing did not require Wilson's attendance since no oral testimony was permitted, and he failed to file a response to the motion, which could have enabled his participation without being present. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion or violate Wilson's equal protection rights by denying his motion for a bench warrant.

Lastly, Wilson's contention that the trial court erred by not conducting court-ordered mediation or adhering to scheduling orders was found to be unpreserved for review.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a)(1) necessitates that a party must make a timely objection in the trial court to preserve any complaints for appellate review. In the case of Wilson, no objections, requests, or motions regarding the mediation or summary judgment hearing were recorded. Although Wilson represented himself (pro se), the court mandates that pro se litigants adhere to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys, as allowing otherwise could unfairly advantage pro se litigants over those with legal representation. Consequently, Wilson's failure to preserve his issue for appellate review resulted in the issue being overruled. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, with costs of the appeal awarded to the appellee, Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company. The judgment was entered on April 27, 2015.