# Saenz v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters

> Texas Supreme Court · August 16, 1996 · 925 S.W.2d 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679889

## Case

- **Full name:** Corina SAENZ and Felipe Saenz, Jr., Petitioners v. FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS and Gisela Armstrong, Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 16, 1996
- **Citations:** 925 S.W.2d 607; 1996 WL 325838
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Spector
- **Judges:** Hecht, Phillips, Gonzalez, Enoch, Baker, Abbott, Cornyn, Owen, Spector
- **Cited by:** 431 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679889

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding the jury’s $250,000 award for mental anguish damages was not fair and reasonable because the only evidence found in the record was one question and one answer, which indicated that Saenz worried and that she believed she and her husband might lose their home and tha…
- holding no evidence that plaintiff suffered mental anguish or that amount awarded would be fair and reasonable where only evidence was plaintiff’s testimony that she “worried . . . a lot” about who would pay for her anticipated lifetime medical expenses and whether she and her…
- stating that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s $250,000 mental anguish award when the only evidence pertaining to mental anguish was Saenz’s testimony that she worried that she and her husband would lose their home and that they could not afford their future …
- holding that person who alleged he or she was fraudulently induced to settle workers’ compensation claim cannot recover damages for hypothetical benefits Commission would have awarded but for settlement but must instead seek rescission of the settlement and re-file claim with …
- holding that statement that plaintiff worried about losing her house and paying medical bills was not evidence of compensable mental anguish or that amount awarded was fair and reasonable compensation

## Opinion text

SPECTOR, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the majority mis-characterizes the damages awarded Saenz by the jury, I respectfully dissent. While recognizing that the “instructions make plain that ■the jury was to find the future medical costs that Saenz would incur as a result of Fidelity’s wrongfully inducing her to settle,” 925 S.W.2d 613 , the majority nevertheless concludes that Saenz is not entitled to damages because Fidelity’s “fraud and bad faith did not cause Saenz any physical injury.” Id. I believe, however, that Saenz’s uncompensated future medical expenses were caused by Fidelity’s misconduct and, therefore, should be upheld.
Saenz brought an action for common-law fraud and bad faith, not for an increase in *618 benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. This is not a rescission claim; instead it is a claim for torts that this Court has recognized exist apart from a claim under the Workers Compensation Act. See Aranda v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 748 S.W.2d 210, 212-18 (Tex.1988). The Act does not cover intentional torts such as fraud and bad faith. See Aranda, 748 S.W.2d at 213-14 ; Porter v. Downing, 578 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Saenz’s uncompensated future medical expenses should be recoverable as damages for Fidelity’s tortious conduct. See Kneip v. Unitedbank-Victoria, 734 S.W.2d 130, 134 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no writ).
We first recognized the duty of good faith and fair dealing because the unequal bargaining power between the parties would “allow unscrupulous insurers to take advantage of their insured’s misfortunes in bargaining for settlement or resolution of ... claims.” Arnold v. Nat'l County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tex.1987). In this ease, that is exactly what happened: Recognizing that “[Saenz’s] condition could deteriorate and eventually result in a condition of imbecility,” Fidelity fraudulently induced Saenz to settle in order to escape the possibility the company could be saddled with “statutory lifetime compensation [and] medical benefits.”
I would hold that the Act does not preclude Saenz’s damages for uncompensated future medical expenses flowing from Fidelity’s tortious conduct. By holding otherwise, the majority leaves injured workers whose workers compensation carriers take advantage of their superior bargaining position with little meaningful recourse. See 865 S.W.2d 103, 122 (Hinojosa, J., dissenting). Therefore, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679889. Public record. Not legal advice.