Requests for Admission in Texas Are Deemed Admitted if no Response

Allowing Admissions to be Deemed Admitted Defeats Suit

Barry Zalma

Sep 12, 2024

Transcript

BACKGROUND

In March 2019, Januzi obtained an insurance policy from her agent, Workman, through AMCI. The policy has a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. She had a water damage claim and over a period of AMCI issued additional payments to pay contractors and various damages making the total disbursement equal to the $75,000 limit. On January 22, AMCI notified Januzi that the last payment constituted the balance of the water damage limit.

Januzi took issue with the $75,000 water damage limit, claiming she was unaware of the sublimit. She further claims that AMCI failed to adequately evaluate and pay her claim. Januzi also believed that her agent failed to provide a policy providing sufficient coverage and that there was a conspiracy between the agent and insurance company to underpay claims. As part of the discovery process, AMCI and Workman sent Januzi requests for admissions. Although Januzi responded to other discovery requests, she did not respond to the admissions request.

In November, AMCI and Workman filed a motion for summary judgment, emphasizing that Januzi failed to respond to the admissions and that they are considered deemed admitted. Ultimately, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Januzi's claims.

DEEMED ADMISSIONS

In Texas, once an action is filed, a party may serve written requests for admissions that can encompass "any matter within the scope of discovery, including statements of opinion or of fact or of the applications of law to fact . . ." If the opposing party does not serve responses to the admissions requests within thirty days, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted against the party without the necessity of a court order.

Withdrawal of deemed admissions is permitted upon a showing of good cause but Januzi has yet to request the deemed admissions be withdrawn or amended. Because the requests for admissions were attached to the motion for summary judgment, the trial court could properly consider them.

The deemed admissions were the controlling evidence before the trial court at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, and the court could not properly have considered affidavits that attempted to controvert those admissions

ANALYSIS

In their motion, AMCI and Workman specifically relied on the following deemed admissions:

1 Admit that you signed the application for the insurance policy attached as Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
2 Admit that you authorized and approved the insurance coverage amounts stated in the application for insurance.
3 Admit that you were aware of the water damage limit at the time you signed the application for the insurance policy found in Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
4 Admit that the water damage limit under the policy is $75,000.
5 Admit that Defendant paid the water damage limit of $75,000.
6 Admit that you replaced items and made upgrades to the insured property that were not part of the water damage claim.
7 Admit the majority of the damages to the insured property were caused by the contractors you hired.
8 Admit water damage limits of $75,000 were paid under the Policy by 1-20-22.

These admissions and many more established that Januzi was aware of the policy limits when she purchased her homeowner's policy from Workman and that those limits include a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. They also establish that AMCI made payments totaling that $75,000 limit.

Januzi's causes of action against Workman for negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation are rooted in her accusation that Workman, an insurance agent, represented that the policy "covered her needs fully" and that "she had the correct coverage." Therefore, the evidence establishes that Januzi was aware of and consented to the policy limits prior to her insurance claim, and Januzi cannot offer any conflicting evidence.

The judgment of the court below was affirmed and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the Appellant, Lynette Januzi.

ZALMA OPINION

When I was a young lawyer California allowed litigants to deem admitted requests for admission that were not responded to in 30 days. I filed, on behalf of my clients, dozens of motions for summary judgment based on requests that were deemed admitted. The plaintiff whose case was lost because of admissions deemed admitted is not without a remedy, her lawyers may be responsible for the error.