Hudson Insurance Company v. BVB Partners ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-15-00163-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
5/21/2015 4:58:03 PM
DORIAN RAMIREZ
CLERK
CASE NO. 13-15-00163-CV
13TH COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG, TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
5/21/2015 4:58:03 PM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY Clerk
v.
BVB PARTNERS
TRIAL COURT CASE NO. CL-14-3125-D
COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 - HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
BRIEF OF APPELLEE BVB PARTNERS
APPELLEE REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
David E. Wood
SBN 21887100
1317 E. Quebec Ave.
McAllen, TX 78503
956-458-2052
956-581-4457 (fax)
e-mail: wood_candace@yahoo.com
Attorney for Appellee BVB Partners
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 6
ARGUMENT 7
PRAYER 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16
1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Black v. Dallas Cty. Child Welfare Unit,
835 S.W.2d 626, 630 n. 10 (Tex. 1992)………………………… 8
FD Frontier Drilling (Cypress) Ltd. v. Didmon,
438 S.W.3d 688, 692-693 (Tex. App. - Houston - 1st Dist. 2014,
pet. denied)…………………………………. …………………...7,8
In Re LaBatt Food Services,
279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009)………………………………..7
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services,
122 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2000)…………………………..11
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services,
303 F. Supp. 2d 1279, (M.D. Ala. 2004)………………………….11
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services,
303 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (M.D. Ala. 2004)…………………………..11, 12, 13
In Re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc.,
987 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. 1999)………………………………..7, 9, 15
In Re Weekley Homes, LP,
180 S.W.3d 127…………………………………………………. 10
In Re Wilson Const. Co.,
196 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. 2006)………………………………. 9
Worford v. Stamper,
801 S.W.2d 108, 109……………………………………………. 8
TRAP 38.1(g)……………………………………………………4, 5
TRAP 38.1(i)…………………………………………………….9
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.016……………..7
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a suit for damages. (CR Vol. 1, p. 4). Hudson Insurance
Company (Hudson) filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay.
(CR Vol. 1, p. 11). On March 17, 2015, the trial court signed an order denying
said motions. (CR Vol. 2, p. 122).
ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument will aid the decisional process by bringing clarity and
context to the facts of this case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BVB Partners (BVB) farmed cotton in Hidalgo County in 2013.
Hudson insured BVB's 2013 cotton crop. As per BVB's petition - on or about
January 23, 2013, in the course of its business and for BVB's guidance,
Hudson falsely informed BVB that it would pay the lower priced enterprise
unit premium/subsidy on prevented planting coverage if BVB put their 522.7
acres of cotton in one unit and planted at least a 20 acre block.
This was a misrepresentation relied on by BVB to their detriment
because when they made their prevented planting claim, Hudson told them
they were not entitled to the reduced premium/subsidy because they had not
planted at least 20 acres or 20% of at least two separate units. The
misrepresentation caused BVB's premium to be $48.00 per acre higher which
3
caused them to be charged at least $25,000.00 more for crop insurance than
they would have been charged had Hudson not misrepresented as set forth
above. BVB alleged: that Hudson did not exercise reasonable care or
competence in obtaining or communicating the false information; BVB
justifiably relied on the false information; and the negligent misrepresentation
proximately caused their damages. (CR Vol. 1, p. 4).
Hudson answered BVB's suit with a general denial and a request that
their claims be referred to arbitration. (CR Vol. 1, p. 8). Hudson then filed its
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay. (CR Vol. 1, p. 11). The
parties presented extensive briefing and arguments regarding the motions
before the court signed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
(CR Vol. 2, pgs. 4, 77, 81, 93, 104, 111, 118, 122)
Pursuant to TRAP 38.1(g), BVB responds to Hudson's Statement of
Facts as follows to contradict, correct, and clarify statements contained
therein:
1. The part of the arbitration provision in the crop insurance policy
quoted by Hudson actually reads: "If you and we fail to agree on any
determination made by us … the disagreement must be resolved through
arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association". (CR Vol. 1 pgs. 78-79).
4
2. The payments BVB received from Hudson were all based on
premiums they paid Hudson. (Appellant's Brief, Exhibit 3).
3. BVB has never complained about Hudson's determination as to the
"premium/applicable premium rate"; and agrees that Hudson's determination
about it was correct. (CR Vol. 1, p. 4, CR Vol. 2, p. 104). BVB alleged that
Hudson's misrepresentations about the requirements for obtaining the lower
priced enterprise unit premium proximately caused their damages.
4. BVB objects to Hudson's statement of fact wherein it describes its
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay as "establishing" that the
arbitration provision "encompasses" BVB's claim. BVB objects to Hudson's
statement of fact about the Supplement it filed to the motion to compel/stay
wherein it states that the supplement "demonstrated" that BVB's claim must
be arbitrated. Both statements are argument in violation of TRAP 38.1(g).
5. Nothing in the Reporter's Record is inconsistent with BVB's position
as referenced above. Also, as per Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply Re
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay filed on February 3, 2015,
BVB alleged that Ms. Helweg's affidavit (CR Vol. 2, p. 91) was incredible and
unsupported by any fact in light of the actual allegations in BVB's petition.
Her affidavit was also controverted. (CR Vol. 2, p. 103).
5
6. There is, apparently, nothing in the record which shows that BVB
"inevitably disagreed with Hudson's ultimate premium determination". There
is evidence that BVB agrees that Hudson's ultimate premium determination
was correct. (CR Vol. 1, p. 4; CR Vol. 2, p. 104, paragraph 5). There appears
to be nothing in the record that shows that BVB and Hudson disagree about
any "determination" made by Hudson.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
BVB's claim against Hudson is outside the scope of the arbitration
provision. BVB's cause of action is negligent misrepresentation based on
Hudson's misrepresentation about the requirements for obtaining the lower
priced enterprise unit premium for crop insurance.
The arbitration provision is not broad. Unlike most arbitration
provisions, it does not apply to any disagreement between the parties, but only
to a disagreement about a "determination" made by Hudson. (CR Vol. 1, pgs.
78-79).
There is no disagreement between the parties about any "determination"
made by Hudson. BVB did not allege that Hudson decided to give them false
information about the requirements for obtaining the enterprise unit premium.
BVB only alleged negligent misrepresentation.
6
A party seeking to compel arbitration must establish that the claims fall
within the scope of the arbitration provision. In Re Oakwood Mobile Homes,
Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. 1999). Hudson did not establish that BVB's
claim against it is within the scope of the arbitration provision.
ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
The only issue in this case is whether Hudson established, under the
facts relevant herein, that BVB's claims were within the scope of the
arbitration provision.
The abuse of discretion standard of review is applied to interlocutory
appeal of orders denying motions to compel arbitration in a matter subject to
the Federal Arbitration Act and appealed pursuant to section 51.016 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code as is this case (see Hudson's brief,
Statement of Jurisdiction). FD Frontier Drilling (Cypress) Ltd. v. Didmon,
438 S.W.3d 688, 692-693 (Tex. App. - Houston - 1st Dist. 2014, pet. denied).
Under that standard, the court must defer to the trial court's factual
determinations if they are supported by evidence. F. D. Frontier Drilling
(Cypress) Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 692-693 (Tex. App. - Houston -
1st Dist. 2014, pet. denied). In Re LaBatt Food Services, 279 S.W.3d 640, 643
(Tex. 2009).
7
Legal determinations are reviewed de novo, and whether a claim falls
within the scope of an arbitration agreement "involves" the trial court's legal
interpretation of the agreement, and such interpretations are reviewed de
novo. F. D. Frontier Drilling (Cypress) Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 692-
693 (Tex. App. - Houston - 1st Dist. 2014, pet. denied).
No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or filed for
this case. It is therefore implied that the trial court made all the findings
necessary to support its decision. In determining whether some evidence
supports the decision and the implied findings of fact, it is proper to consider
only that evidence most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that
which is opposed to it or contradictory. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108,
109. Black v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit, 835 S.W.2d 626, 630 n. 10
(Tex. 1992).
The trial court had before it BVB's petition, the arbitration provision,
the affidavit of Bruce Shields, and BVB's repeated admission that it was not
complaining about or disagreeing with Hudson's "ultimate premium
determination". (CR Vol. 1, p. 4; CR Vol. 1, p. 11; CR Vol. 2, p. 77; CR Vol.
2, p. 104; CR Vol. 2, p. 118). As per Worford and Black, the Court must
"disregard entirely" anything opposed to that evidence.
8
The trial court found that there was no disagreement between the parties
about any determination made by Hudson at issue in BVB's suit. Pursuant to
that finding, the only legal determination that could reasonably be made about
whether BVB's claim falls within the scope of the arbitration provision, is that
Hudson failed to establish that BVB's claims were within its scope.
Scope of the Arbitration Provision
Arbitration is not automatic. A trial court is actually correct to deny
arbitration if, under the facts of the case, it finds that the provision is not
susceptible of an interpretation that covers the issue in dispute. In Re D.
Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. 2006). Hudson failed to carry
its burden to show that BVB's claim is within the scope of the arbitration
provision as it was obliged to do. In Re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987
S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. 1999).
With regard to Hudson's law of "direct benefits estoppel" argument,
there appears to be nothing in In Re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774
(Tex. 2006), that even mentions it. BVB objects to this argument because
TRAP 38.1(i) requires appropriate citations to authorities in support of the
argument, and this argument has no such support.
9
BVB has never contended and does not now contend that the arbitration
provision is not valid or that they would not have to arbitrate this case if there
actually was a disagreement between the parties about a determination made
by Hudson with which they disagree. Since the issue of whether BVB's claim
falls within the scope of the provision is the only issue, BVB's argument will
focus only on that issue.
The arbitration provision herein is narrow in comparison with the
arbitration language in the cases cited by Hudson. They require arbitration of
any disagreement between the parties. It is not surprising that the courts have
decided that almost any disagreement falls within the broad scope of those
provisions.
The arbitration provision in this case applies only to disagreements
about determinations made by Hudson, in contrast with broad arbitration
provisions such as the one cited by the Supreme Court of Texas in In Re
Weekley Homes, LP, 180 S.W.3d 127, which required arbitration of "any
claim, dispute, or cause of action".
It is not hard to write a broad arbitration provision, but the arbitration
provision in this case is not like those in the cases cited by Hudson.
10
If the RMA had meant to write a broad arbitration provision into the
crop insurance policies issued by insurers like Hudson, it could have easily
done so with broad language such as appears in the referenced cases. The
arbitration provision in this case is different, and Hudson is stuck with that
provision, not the one they wish they had.
"Nobles" is Dispositive
There are three Nobles opinions: (1) Nobles v. Rural Community Ins.
Services, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2000); (2) Nobles v. Rural
Community Ins. Services, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1279, (M.D. Ala. 2004); and (3)
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (M.D. Ala.
2004).
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (M.D.
Ala. 2004), is on point for this case. It dealt with basically the same arbitration
provision. Both it and the second Nobles opinion show that the plaintiff
farmers' state-law claims against their crop insurance company were
reinstated after the parties submitted the issue of the farms' insurability to
arbitration.
The farmers in Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services, 303 F. Supp. 2d
1292 (M.D. Ala. 2004) filed suit against a private insurance company selling
FCIC reinsured crop insurance such as Hudson.
11
They claimed the insurer failed to pay their claims because it
determined that their farm land was not insurable after having represented to
them that it was insurable before they purchased the insurance. The court in
the first Nobles case ordered arbitration on the issue of the insurer's
determination that the farm was not insurable under crop insurance rules,
because there was an obvious disagreement between the parties on that issue.
After the parties completed arbitration (wherein the arbitrator found
that the farm was insurable), the court reinstated the farmers' claims for breach
of contract, fraud/negligent or wanton training, suppression of material facts
and negligence/wantonness, and bad faith, so they could seek relief on those
state law claims. The insurance company complained that it should not have
to defend such claims because crop insurance regulations required that they
find that the farm was not insurable. The court ruled against them and said
(emphasis added):
"The key act underlying Nobles and Hales' fraud claim, for example, is not
RCIS' denial of their insurance coverage, but is instead RCIS' act of telling
them that their land was insurable. While RCIS maintains that it was required
to find that 4,990 acres of Nobles and Hales' cotton crop were uninsurable due
to FCIC rules, it certainly was not required to misrepresent to them that their
land was insurable when in fact it was not. Similarly, the basis for Nobles and
Hales' suppression-of-material-fact and negligence-and-wantonness claims is
RCIS' failure to tell Nobles and Hales about 9(a)'s one-in-three requirement.
Again, while RCIS may have been required under FCIC rules to find that
4,990 acres of Nobles and Hales' cotton crop were uninsurable, those rules did
not require it to fail to tell Nobles and Hales about the requirements of 9(a)."
12
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (M.D.
Ala. 2004) shows what is and is not supposed to go to arbitration regarding
farmers' claims against their crop insurers. Real disagreements about actual
determinations made by the insurer must be arbitrated. Misrepresentation
about FCIC rules, which is BVB's claim, is not within the scope of the
arbitration provision because misrepresentation is not a "determination", it is
a tort that is to be handled in court.
In response to Hudson's assertion that the arbitration provision in
Nobles was more narrow than the provision in this case, BVB says there is
nothing to support this. Apparently, the RMA simply deleted the word
"factual" for being superfluous, and changed the language so it would apply
only to determinations made by the insurer. Hudson does not make a case for
how Nobles would have been decided differently had the present provision
been at issue there, because it would have made no difference.
Hudson goes to some length arguing that BVB's filing suit against it
shows they disagreed with Hudson's determination about the
"premium/applicable premium rate". This argument is disingenuous, but it
seems to be the only one Hudson has, since it is unable to point to any actual
disagreement between the parties about any determination made by Hudson.
13
The trial court found otherwise because BVB never made any such
claim, and clearly stated that they agreed that the determination was correct.
When, in response to BVB's prevented planting claim, Hudson
correctly determined that BVB did not qualify for the reduced premium
because all their cotton was in one unit, it was apparent that Hudson had
misrepresented the requirements by its prior representation that they would
qualify if they put all their cotton in one unit. BVB's cause of action for
negligent misrepresentation was complete at that point because it was not until
then that they sustained damages. If Hudson had determined to charge BVB
the lower premium then BVB would have no negligent misrepresentation case
because there would be no damages. Nevertheless, this does not amount to a
disagreement between the parties about a determination made by Hudson. It
just shows a ripe cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.
In response to Hudson's "direct benefits estoppel" argument, BVB says
that it does not deny and never has denied that the insurance contract in
question contains a valid arbitration clause. The cases cited by Hudson about
this doctrine are not relevant to this case because none of them stand for the
proposition that anyone who benefits in any way pursuant to an agreement
with an arbitration provision must then go to arbitration even if their claim is
not within the scope of the provision.
14
In any event, the "benefits" BVB received were nothing more than the
result of their bargained for agreement under the policy whereby they get
insurance coverage in exchange for premiums they pay.
BVB is not making any "equitable objection" to arbitration. BVB's
position is that its claim is not within the scope of the arbitration provision.
In Re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. is still the law, and it requires that
Hudson establish that BVB's claim falls within the scope of the arbitration
provision. Hudson failed to do this, so the trial court was correct in denying
its motion to compel arbitration.
PRAYER
Wherefore, appellee BVB Partners prays that the trial court is affirmed,
and for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which they may be
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David E. Wood
SBN 21887100
1317 E. Quebec Ave.
McAllen, TX 78503
956-458-2052
956-581-4457 (fax)
e-mail: wood_candace@yahoo.com
Attorney for Appellee BVB Partners
15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the number of words in this computer generated brief is
3039.
/s/ David E. Wood
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this brief was e-filed and sent to appellant's attorney, Steve
E. Couch, by e-service through the electronic filing manager on May 21, 2015.
/s/ David E. Wood
16