X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Co., appeals a default judgment in favor of the appellee, Drewery Construction Company Inc. Drewery entered into a subcontractor’s agreement with JenCra Inc. to provide labor and materials for a construction project known as the Cypress Ridge Townhomes in Nacogdoches. JenCra was the general contractor and Fidelity was the insurer on a payment bond for the townhome project. Drewery asserted that JenCra had not paid for labor and materials supplied to the project in connection with alleged construction change orders. During the course of the controversy, Fidelity requested that Drewery produce “approved change orders.” Drewery failed to do so, and JenCra denied that any existed. Drewery submitted a claim against the bond for $167,011 and subsequently filed and recorded an Affidavit for Mechanic’s and Materialmen’s Lien against the real property on which the construction project was located. Fidelity denied Drewery’s claim and Drewery filed suit against JenCra and Fidelity. Drewery served citation on Fidelity through its registered agent for service, the Corporate Service Company (CSC) in Austin. Drewery also attempted to serve JenCra through its registered agent for service, Craig Harris. Service on Harris was unsuccessful at his registered address, and the unexecuted citation was returned. Drewery then filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, alleging that JenCra was subject to service of citation through a Texas long-arm statute. Accordingly, Drewery served JenCra by serving the Texas Secretary of State. Neither Fidelity nor JenCra appeared or filed an answer. On Nov. 14, 2003, the trial court held a default judgment hearing. Drewery was the only party that appeared at the hearing. After live testimony and admission of other evidence, the trial court entered an Interlocutory Judgment by Default against Fidelity. On Dec. 3, 2003, the secretary of state certified that plaintiff’s first amended original petition was forwarded on Nov. 13, 2003, to JenCra at 5796 Hoffner Avenue, Suite 604, Orlando, FL 32822-4822. Process was returned to the secretary of state on Dec. 2, 2003, bearing the notation “Box Closed.” Drewery subsequently filed a Certificate of Last Known Address for both JenCra and Fidelity. On Jan. 7, 2004, the trial court held another default judgment hearing at which Drewery appeared. Fidelity and JenCra still had not appeared or filed an answer. After hearing evidence and examining the pleadings and exhibits on file, the trial court found that JenCra was indebted to Drewery in the amount of $158,131 plus prejudgment interest of $6,303, attorneys’ fees of $3,150, and court costs of $427. The court granted a default judgment against JenCra, incorporated the interlocutory judgment against Fidelity, and ordered that JenCra and Fidelity, jointly and severally, pay Drewery for damages in the sum of $168,011. Fidelity filed a motion for new trial alleging that the default judgment should be vacated and a new trial granted because 1. It met the three requirements in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939); and 2. The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the damages awarded to Drewery. The trial court denied Fidelity’s motion. This appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The submitted affidavits explain the normal procedure for handling new lawsuits CSC received on behalf of Fidelity. But there is no affidavit from a person who actually handled the citation explaining how the citation was lost or where in the chain of communication a breakdown occurred that led to Fidelity’s failure to answer the citation. In this case, none of the affidavits Fidelity submitted explain what happened to the citation. Each affidavit stated that Fidelity’s failure to answer was not intentional. However, a trial court cannot vacate a default judgment based only upon general allegations or conclusions. The court concludes that Fidelity did not establish that its conduct was not intentional or consciously indifferent. Therefore, Fidelity did not meet the first Craddock requirement. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a new trial only if the defendant has met all three of the Craddock requirements. Because Fidelity did not establish that it acted without intent or conscious disregard, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Fidelity contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the award of $168,011 in damages to Drewery. The court disagrees with Fidelity’s conclusion that the damages here are unliquidated. The court agrees, however, that sufficient evidence of liquidated damages was not originally on file with the petitions. In the subsequent hearings, Drewery submitted damages evidence in writing as well as by testimonial evidence. The trial court was able to ascertain the amount of damages based on the itemized statement provided by Drewery. Further, at the hearings, persons with the necessary knowledge, Drewery’s accountant and president, attested to the accuracy of the amount of damages. The court concludes that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient for the trial court’s award of damages to Drewery. OPINION:Diane Devasto, J.; Worthen, C.J., Griffith and DeVasto, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.