IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
444444444444
NO. 14-0721
444444444444
USAA TEXAS LLOYDS COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GAIL MENCHACA, RESPONDENT
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT, concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, and III-C of JUSTICE BOYD’s plurality opinion and Part III of
JUSTICE GREEN’s opinion, also a plurality. I join in the Court’s judgment remanding the case to the
trial court for a new trial, but for reasons different from those expressed in JUSTICE BOYD’s opinion.
USAA and Menchaca have both argued, each consistently throughout, in the trial court, the
court of appeals, and now this Court, that the jury answers in the verdict do not conflict. The Court
unanimously disagrees. JUSTICE BOYD would hold that the trial court cannot render judgment on
fatally conflicting jury answers, and I agree. The trial court erred in rendering judgment for
Menchaca. But JUSTICE BOYD would also hold that the error is not reversible unless the appellant
objected in the trial court. Since USAA was the appellant and did not object in the trial court,
JUSTICE BOYD concludes that it is not entitled to reversal. But USAA could not object, consistent
with its position that the jury answers do not conflict. Menchaca took the same position, and had the
trial court picked USAA to win, she, too, could not complain on appeal because she, like USAA,
could not have objected. Thus, in JUSTICE BOYD’s view, if neither side thinks jury answers conflict,
and an appellate court later disagrees, the party for whom the trial court erroneously rendered
judgment wins. I disagree that an objection was necessary in this situation for the reasons given by
JUSTICE GREEN in Part III of his dissent. In my view, because USAA and Menchaca each insists on
rendition of a favorable judgment, and judgment cannot be rendered for either based on the
conflicting answers in the jury verdict, the case must be retried. I do not agree with JUSTICE BOYD
that the parties’ confusion about the law requires a retrial in the interest of justice. Rather, a retrial
is the only way to correct the trial court’s error given the parties’ erroneous positions.
JUSTICE GREEN would render judgment for USAA because Menchaca, as plaintiff, had the
burden of obtaining findings to support a judgment in her favor and failed to do so. I disagree.
Menchaca obtained the findings she needed. The jury’s answers to Questions 2 and 3—that USAA
underpaid her $11,350 in policy benefits because it did not reasonably investigate her claim—
supported a judgment in her favor. But the jury’s answers to those questions conflicted with its
answer to Question 1. The answers to Questions 2 and 3 establish that USAA failed to comply with
its policy, yet the jury refused to make that finding in answer to Question 1. Menchaca cannot
prevail because the jury answers were conflicting, not because they were insufficient.
2
Accordingly, I join in the Court’s judgment remanding the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Nathan L. Hecht
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered: April 13, 2018
3