in Re Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-14-00979-cv
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
1/14/2015 12:02:53 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
CASE NO . 01-14-00979-CV
IN RE INTERINSURANCE § INFILED
THEINFIRST
1st COURT OF APPEALS
EXCHANGE OF THE § HOUSTON, TEXAS
AUTOMOBILE CLUB, § COURT OF 12:02:53
1/14/2015 APPEALS PM
Realtor. § CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
§ HOUSTON, ClerkTEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
RESPONSE TO THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Come now, John Amponsah and Melanie Amponsah ("Amponsahs"), Real
Parties in Interest, and make this Response to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
I.
BACKGROUND
1.1 The Amponsahs filed this lawsuit in January 2013. They are suing their
homeowners insurance carrier (Relator) for denying their claim that should have
been paid, for significant damage to their home and foundation.
1.2 On June 9, 2014, Relator presented their retained testifying engineer for
deposition, Derrick S. Hancock, P.E. Mr. Hancock was the engineer hired by
Page 1 of 11
Relator to inspect the Amponsahs' home. Mr. Hancock wrote a report after his
inspection and submitted his report to Relator. Relator relied on Mr. Hancock's
report as the sole basis for denying the Amponsahs' claim on their homeowners'
insurance coverage. Relator has designated Mr. Hancock as a retained testifying
expert witness in this action. In deposition, Mr. Hancock testified to the following
facts:
(1) Mr. Hancock has done several thousand forensic evaluations of property
foundations that failed.
(2) His forensic investigations of failed foundations have all been done on
behalf of an insurance company.
(3) Mr. Hancock has been retained by insurance companies as a consultant in
lawsuits since the mid- 1980's.
(4) When Mr. Hancock has been hired to do a forensic investigation of a
foundation failure, it has always been to help an insurance company, never
an insured.
(5) When Mr. Hancock is hired by an insurance company, it would be rare for
him to not provide a written report of his findings and conclusions.
(6) Mr. Hancock has worked for AAA Texas (the defendants in this lawsuit),
State Farm, USAA, Travelers Insurance, Zurich Insurance, and AllState.
(7) Mr. Hancock has been hired by the claims adjuster who denied the
Plaintiffs' claim, Mike Hendricks, on as many as 50 claims.
(8) Mr. Hancock has been hired before by Cecil Shepherd, another of the
Defendants' claims adjusters. Mr. Shepherd is designated by the Defendants
as a witness on the Plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit.
(9) Mr. Hancock has been hired by 3-4 other claims adjusters of the Defendants,
on approximately 10- 15 assignments.
Page 2 of 11
(1 0) With respect to the approximately 50 projects that Mr. Hancock has been
hired by AAA Texas' adjuster Mike Hendricks, those projects have all been
within the last 7-10 years.
(11) Mr. Hancock understands that when he determines as he did with respect to
the Plaintiffs' claims, that a leak under the foundation did not contribute to
the foundation failure, that AAA Texas uses his determination as the basis
for denying the insurance claim.
(12) On 70-80% of the foundation claims on which Mr. Hancock has been hired
by the Defendants, Mr. Hancock concluded that the foundation failure was
not related to a plumbing leak, and so the insurer can deny coverage.
(13) Mr. Hancock uses the electronic file of his reports as a template for a current
1
project, since leaks under a foundation are a common problem in Houston.
1.3 Relator's petition notes correctly that, after severance of the extra-
contractual claims against Relator, discovery is being conducted at this time only
for breach of contract.
II.
SUMMARY
2.1 Bias, credibility, and reliability of evidence offered by a retained testifying
expert witness, any witness for that matter, is always relevant. Relator argues
simply that their retained testifying expert witness' testimony already indicates
bias, and no further evidence is discoverable, necessary or relevant. Whether
Relator, the insurer, had a duty to perform its obligations under the msurance
1
Tab A, Deposition of DerrickS. Hancock, P.E.; pages II, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23 , 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 33.
Page 3 of 11
contract, such that denying the Amponsahs' claim constituted breach of contract, is
. 2
t h e ISSUe.
2.2 Relator decided they had no duty to perform, based entirely on the opinion
of their retained testifying expert witness, that the plumbing leak under their
foundation did not cause the foundation to sink, but rather the soil
settling/dropping caused the foundation to sink and crack. 3 As Relator has
admitted, this same engineer has managed to reach the same conclusion on "70-
80%" of the other foundation claims he has been hired on by Relator.
2.3 The question therefore turns on the credibility of the expert's analysis and
opinions. The issue is whether this retained expert's opinions are grounded in
legitimate science, and Relator really had no obligation to pay the Amponsahs ' and
other claims; or whether the science and the facts are irrelevant to this expert and
the overriding objective is to make a determination that favors Relator. That
question can be answered only by discovery of facts and data that underlie the
expert's opinions, evident in the reports sought, which are fair game under Texas
Rule of Evidence 705, Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion.
III.
AUTHORITIES
2
See, e.g., Greene v. Farm ers Ins. Exch., No. 12-0867 (Tex. 2014).
3
Tabs C, D and E.
Page 4 of 11
A. Bias, reliability and credibility of a retained testifying expert witness
are always relevant.
3.1 Relator's sole basis for denying the Amponsahs' claim was their retained
testifying expert witness' opinion that the home's foundation failed because the
ground under the foundation settled/dropped, not because of the leak in the
plumbing under the foundation. 4 Armed with their retained expert's report, Relator
decided they had no duty to perform under their insurance contract, and so denied
the Amponsahs' claim. 5 The credibility of the expert's opinion is therefore central
to Relator's duty to perform under the insurance contract.
3.2 Texas Rule of Evidence 705 provides, in part, that an "expert may in any
event disclose on direct examination, or be required to disclose on cross-
examination, the underlying facts or data," of the expert's opinion. Factors that a
court may consider in determining admissibility of an expert's opinion are non-
exclusive, and include "the extent to which the theory has been or can be tested,
the extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the
expert, whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or publication,
the technique's potential rate of error, whether the underlying theory or technique
has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community, and the
non-judicial uses that have been made of the theory or technique (emphasis
4
Tab D report dated July 15, 20 11 , and Tab E, report dated September 12, 2011 ; HSA Engineering ,
Derrick S. Hancock, P.E.
5
Tab C, letter from Relator's employee dated September 13, 20 11.
Page 5 of 11
added) ." 6 If the expert's opinion is not admissible in the breach of contract action,
there is no evidence to support Relator' s decision that they had no duty to perform.
Whether Relator's retained engineer applied acceptable methodology, analyzed
facts normally relied on by engineers in this situation, and evaluated the cause of
foundation failures with an objective, scientific, and impartial method-all relevant
to credibility- can be examined only by way of comparison to his other reports.
B. The legal authority cited by Relator fails to support their requested
remedy.
3.3 First, Relator cites to the trial court's severance of the extra-contractual
claims as the basis for arguing their retained expert's reports are not relevant. The
trial court was perfectly aware of its ruling to sever those other claims, when it
ordered the reports produced in the first place and upheld its ruling when Relator
appealed that order. It is well-settled that the trial court has broad discretion to
define the scope of discovery. 7 That discretion includes the right to limit discovery
depending on the needs of the case.8 Implicitly, through its order to produce the
reports, and then denying Relator's appeal of that order, the trial court found these
reports relevant to whether the insurance contract was breached. The trial court' s
6
Weiss v. Mechanical Associated Servs. , 989 S.W.2d 120 , 124-25 (Tex. App .-San Antonio 1999) .
7
See In re Alford Chevrolet-Gee, 997 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. 1999).
8
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4(b) , Limitations on th e Scope of Discovery .
Page 6 ofll
consideration and re-consideration of this issue, with full knowledge of the
pleadings and evidence presented, should not be over-turned now. 9
3.4 Relator cites to Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 2014 WL 5785871, and In re GMAC
Direct Ins. Co., 2010 WL 5550672. Neither is authoritative in any respect.
3.5 Relator acknowledges that the remedy, mandamus, is extraordinary. Relator
acknowledges that this extraordinary remedy is "appropriate only when a trial
court has clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate
remedy." Relator acknowledges it is their burden to prove this monumental
standard. The scope of discovery in regard to testifying expert witnesses,
necessarily includes "any bias of the witness." 10 No doubt Relator's retained
expert's testimony of the sheer number of consultations, and the estimate of the
times his opinion managed to fall in favor of Relator, is some evidence of bias.
The extent to which the facts and science have been disregarded, so as to create an
opinion that falls in favor of Relator, can only be proven through the reports. The
trial court thought so. That information is relevant to the credibility of his opinion
in this action, entirely dispositive to Relator's breach of contract. Unreasonably
11
restricting access to information through discovery, is an abuse of discretion.
Rule 192 allows discovery "relevant to the subject matter," which is to be liberally
9
Relator's petition. Appendix , Tab F, p. 47. The court acknowledges, after severing the extra-contractual
claims , that "engineering reports" could be relevant and are "fair game."
10
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(e)(5), Testifying and consulting experts.
11
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192, Permissible Discovery: Forms & Scope; Work Product; Protective
Orders; Definitions , Comment 7.
Page 7 ofll
construed for the fullest knowledge of facts and issues prior to trial. 12 The bottom
line--Relator has not shown evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy they
now want.
Wherefore, premises considered, Relator's petition for mandamus must be
denied.
Respectfully submitted,
THE RENSIM~A W FIRM, P.L.L.C.
~~~
James E. Rensimer
Texas Bar No. 24027772
9525 Katy Freeway, Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77024
JR@RensimerLaw .com
713-750-9299 p
877-455-1544 f
ATTORNEY FOR REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
JOHN AMPONSAH AND MELANIE
AMPONSAH
12
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656, 664 (Tex. 2009).
Page 8 ofll
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in
compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on
January 8, 2015.
David H. Bradley
WALTERS BALIDO & CRAIN, LLP
2500 Tanglewilde, Suite 250
Houston, Texas 77063
713-335-0286 f
ATTORNEY FOR REALTOR
The Honorable Thomas R. Culver III
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
301 Jackson
Richmond, Texas 77469
RESPONDENT
James E. Rensimer
Page 9 ofll
CASE NO. 01 -14-00979-CV
IN RE INTERINSURANCE § IN THE FIRST
EXCHANGE OF THE §
AUTOMOBILE CLUB, § COURT OF APPEALS
Realtor. §
§ HOUSTON, TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
RECORD APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
From Cause No. 13-DCV-203651 Pending in the 240th Judicial District Court of
Fort Bend County
THE RENSIMER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
James E. Rensimer
Texas Bar No. 24027772
9525 Katy Freeway, Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77024
JR@RensimerLaw.com
713 -750-9299 p
877-455 - 1544 f
ATTORNEY FOR REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
JOHN AMPONSAH AND MELANIE
AMPONSAH
Page 10 of 11
Cause Number 13-DCV-203651
(The Action)
Instrument Tab
Deposition ofDerrick Hancock (June 9, 2014) A
Deposition of Derrick Hancock Exhibits ( 1-18) B
Letter from Mike Hendricks to John and Melanie
Amponsah (sent September 13, 2011) c
HSA Residential Report (sent July 15, 2011) D
HSA Supplement Residential Report
(sent September 12, 2011) E
Page 11 of 11