Peter Ruggero, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christopher W. Floyd v. Donnell, Kieschnick, Wolter & Gamez, a Professional Corporation, Sandra Sterba-Boatwright, Kristina Fernandez, and Texas Farm Bureau

Summary

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed summary judgment for attorneys, an insurer, and related defendants in an action brought by a bankruptcy trustee. The court held that the trustee waived challenges to certain summary-judgment grounds and failed to produce evidence raising a fact issue on the elements of breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, causation, or damages. The court therefore did not address the appellees’ affirmative defenses.

Holdings

1. An appellant who fails to specifically challenge every possible ground supporting summary judgment waives any error as to the unchallenged grounds, and the appellate court may affirm without reviewing the merits of the challenged grounds. Because Ruggero did not challenge the standing ground, the court could affirm on that basis.
2. A nonmovant responding to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment must identify evidence raising a fact issue on each challenged element. Ruggero failed to do so for breach, causation, damages, and the elements of fraudulent concealment; therefore, the trial court properly granted no-evidence summary judgment.
3. The trial court did not err in granting appellees' motions for summary judgment and dismissing Ruggero's claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on the unchallenged ground that Ruggero lacked standing to assert legal-malpractice claims based on alleged wrongs that did not affect him personally.
2. Whether Ruggero produced no-evidence summary-judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the challenged elements of breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment.
3. Whether the trial court erred by granting appellees' no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed