California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-15-00314-CV
8343638
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/22/2015 1:32:36 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
FILED IN
One American Center 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
600 Congress AUSTIN, TEXAS
Suite 1900 December 22, 2015
Austin, TX 78701 12/22/2015 1:32:36 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
P.O. Box 1149 Clerk
Austin, TX 78767
p: 512.744.9300
f: 512.744.9399
www.dwmrlaw.com Via E-Filing
Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas
209 West 14th Street, Room 101
Austin, Texas 78701
RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-15-00314-CV
Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-09-001010
California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property
and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property
and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers
Transportation, Inc.
Dear Mr. Kyle:
At the oral argument of this case on December 2, 2015, the Court
asked whether Appellee Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.’s cross-point
raises an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellant guaranty
associations filed a letter on December 11, 2015, acknowledging that Hill
Brothers’ cross-point is a jurisdictional issue.
Although there appears to be some disagreement among Texas
courts, this Court has consistently analyzed the question of whether one is
the proper party to bring a breach of contract action as a jurisdictional issue
of “standing.”1 The most recent of these cases is Justice Field’s opinion in
1
See Handwerker Hren Legal Search, Inc. v. Recruiting Partners GP, Inc., No. 03-13-
00239-CV, 2015 WL 4999054 (Tex. App. – Austin Aug. 19, 2015, pet. requested)
(employees of recruiting firm sued to recover under contract between their employer and
another; whether employees could sue for breach of contract was jurisdictional issue of
“standing”); Hamilton v. Washington, No. 03-11-00594-CV, 2014 WL 7458988 *9
Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
December 22, 2015
Page 2
Handwerker Hren Legal Search, Inc. v. Recruiting Partners GP, Inc.,
issued a mere five months ago.2
This Court has correctly treated the issue as a jurisdictional one. Hill
Brothers’ cross-point asserts that the guaranty associations have no legal
interest in the contract rights of Legion, an insolvent insurer being
liquidated in the Pennsylvania courts. In other words, the guaranty
associations have no legally-cognizable interest in the contract they seek to
enforce. This is an issue of standing, or subject matter jurisdiction.
For the reasons explained in its Appellee’s Brief, Hill Brothers
respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the judgment of the
district court for want of jurisdiction, or affirm the judgment.
(Tex. App. – Austin Dec. 23, 2014, no pet.) (same when officer sued to collect under
contract between city and police association); see also Gonzales v. VATR Const., LLC,
418 S.W.3d 777, 789 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (same when estate of deceased
worker sued under contract between contractor and property owner); First-Citizens Bank
& Trust Co. v. Greater Austin Telecommunications Network, 318 S.W.3d 560, 566 (Tex.
App. – Austin 2010, no pet.) (same when assignee bank sued on contract between
cabling company and government); OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Vill.,
L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 738 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (same when
“unadmitted assignee” of partner’s interest sued on partnership agreement). But see
John C. Flood of DC, Inc. v. SuperMedia, 408 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Tex.App.—Dallas
2013, pet. denied) (company sued to collect under a contract to which it was not a party;
authority to bring breach-of-contract action held to be non-jurisdictional issue of
“capacity”); Dakil v. Lege, 408 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2012, no pet.) (same
when contractor sued for payment on invoices of corporation but did not prove authority
to sue on behalf of corporation); Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. v. Criaco, 225
S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same when law firm
sued to recover under agreement between firm’s client and client’s insurance company);
Spurgeon v. Coan & Elliott, 180 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2005, no pet.)
(same when lawyers sued to collect under contract between client and law firm).
2
See 2015 WL 4999054.
Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
December 22, 2015
Page 3
Sincerely,
/s/ Marnie McCormick
Marnie McCormick
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document contains 337 words in the portions of the
document that are subject to the word limits of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.4(i), as measured by the undersigned’s word-processing
software.
/s/ Marnie McCormick
Marnie McCormick
CC: Via E-Filing
Dan Price
STONE LOUGHLIN & SWANSON, LLP
P.O. Box 30111
Austin, Texas 78755
dprice@slsaustin.com