Background
William and Debbie Thurston hired Trinity Pools & Scapes, LLC, to build a pool. They alleged that H & H Concrete On Demand Austin, LLC supplied contaminated concrete that caused pervasive cracking and that H&H Concrete and Trinity performed ineffective repairs. The Thurstons sued both companies for breach of warranty, negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Neither defendant answered the lawsuit or appeared at the default-judgment hearing. The trial court awarded the Thurstons $273,767.58 in damages plus attorney’s fees against the defendants jointly and severally. H&H Concrete brought a restricted appeal; Trinity did not appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that H&H Concrete’s default conclusively established liability and the petition’s factual allegations, but it did not establish the causal connection between the conduct alleged and the Thurstons’ injuries for purposes of calculating unliquidated damages. The record therefore still had to contain evidence showing that H&H Concrete caused the damages for which compensation was awarded.
The evidence was insufficient because William Thurston’s declaration relied on an engineering report stating that the concrete was reportedly installed by “H&H Tile and Plaster,” not H&H Concrete. Nothing linked those entities or otherwise demonstrated H&H Concrete’s responsibility for the defective concrete and resulting damage. The court reversed the damages portion of the default judgment and remanded for further proceedings on any unliquidated damages attributable to H&H Concrete, while otherwise affirming the judgment. It also held that any failure to comply with the default-judgment notice requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a was not reversible error in a restricted appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A no-answer default establishes liability and admits pleaded facts, but it does not establish the amount of unliquidated damages.
- A plaintiff seeking unliquidated damages after default must prove a causal connection between the event sued upon and the claimed injuries.
- When the evidence at an uncontested damages hearing is insufficient, the proper remedy is a remand for a new determination of unliquidated damages, while the defaulted liability remains intact.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a plaintiff cannot rely solely on a defendant’s default to obtain unliquidated damages. Even where liability is deemed admitted, the record must contain competent evidence tying the defaulting defendant’s conduct to the specific injuries and amount claimed.
It also illustrates the importance of checking expert reports and declarations for inconsistencies in party identification. Here, the report’s reference to a differently named company left the damages award without evidence connecting H&H Concrete to the defective material and resulting loss.