Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Austin, Texas personal injury car wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff in an auto negligence case.

In April 2014, Magdaleno Villegas was injured in an automobile collision with Arellano, who was intoxicated at the time. See Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. v. Villegas, No. 01-17-00750-CV, 2019 WL 3121853, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 16, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).[1] Villegas sent a demand letter to Arellano's insurer, Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Old American). Old American denied Villegas's claim because Arellano had not been sued and because of an exclusion in Villegas's policy. See id.

Villegas then sued Arellano and Maria D. Martinez in late 2014. Villegas alleged that through Arellano's negligence and gross negligence, and while driving a vehicle negligently entrusted to him by Martinez, Arellano crossed the roadway's double yellow lines and collided head-on with the vehicle he was driving, causing him serious personal injuries. Villegas further alleged that after the collision, Arellano was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI), having previously been convicted twice for DWI. Villegas pleaded for actual damages as well as exemplary damages for Arellano's alleged gross negligence.

In March 2015, Villegas filed a motion for default judgment against Arellano. In his motion, Villegas asserted that Arellano's liability was established by his failure to answer and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary to support the unliquidated damages alleged in his petition because courts may award such damages based on affidavits, which he attached, including his own. Thereafter the trial court signed an interlocutory order granting default judgment against Arellano for his failure to answer.[2] The judgment awarded the following actual damages: $605.44 for past lost wages; $4,233 for past medical expenses; $15,000 for past mental anguish; $35,000 for past physical impairment; and $50,000 for past pain and suffering. It also awarded $150,000 in exemplary damages.

About seven months after the interlocutory default judgment, the trial court granted Villegas's application for turnover relief, ordering Arellano to "turn over any and all claims or causes of action he may have now or in the future, including but not limited to the Stowers action and the failure to defend action, against Old American[.]" In April 2016, Villegas filed an amended petition, asserting claims against Old American "pursuant to the turnover order."

* * *

Legal issue Did the trial court err in awarding unliquidated damages in a default judgment without sufficient evidence, and in denying a motion for a new trial due to claimed insufficiency of evidence and lack of a meritorious defense?
Headnote

CIVIL PROCEDURE. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. The appellant appealed a default judgment, challenging the legal sufficiency of evidence for unliquidated damages and arguing that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on the Craddock test.

CIVIL PROCEDURE. CRADDOCK TEST FOR SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. The court examined whether the appellant properly set up a meritorious defense under the Craddock test, which involves proving that the failure to answer was not intentional, the presence of a defense, and no undue delay or injury to the plaintiff.

TORT LAW. EVIDENCE FOR DAMAGES. The case addresses the sufficiency of evidence required to support various types of unliquidated damages, including lost wages, medical expenses, mental anguish, physical impairment, and pain and suffering.

TORT LAW. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. The judgment discussed the propriety of awarding exemplary damages in cases involving allegations of gross negligence, especially in light of proportionality to actual damages.

TORT LAW. CAUSAL NEXUS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS. The court evaluated the necessity of establishing a causal connection between the alleged injuries and the event in question to support a claim for unliquidated damages.

Key Phrases Default judgment. Unliquidated damages. Exemplary damages. Trial court. Appellate court.

Outcome: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: