The Dallas Court of Appeals has affirmed a summary judgment against a pro se plaintiff who failed to prove that his UM/UIM claim was based on the at-fault driver’s insurance status.
Alvin Jones v. Progressive Insurance (No. 05-25-00231-CV; April 7, 2026) arose from a hit-and-run accident. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a claim under the UM/UIM coverage of his Progressive policy. Progressive denied coverage. Subsequently, the insurer filed a no-evidence MSJ, which the trial court granted. Plainbtiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Breedlove, the court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff argued first that the trial court erred in conducting the summary judgment hearing by submission. As the court observed, the trial court has the discretion to grant an oral hearing on an MSJ and may determine the merits based only upon the pleadings, discovery responses, sworn affidavits, and other valid evidence submitted as grounds for granting or denying the motion. TRCP 166a. The only thing an oral hearing adds to the pot is argument of counsel, which the trial court is free to dispense with altogether. Here Plaintiff responded to the insurer’s motion, had the opportunity to be heard, and got a ruling from the court. Nothing more is required by due process.
Second, Plaintiff argued that he submitted evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. The problem was that he had no evidence of whether the at-fault driver was in fact uninsured or underinsured. Plaintiff presented evidence that Progressive paid him for damage to the vehicle, but that was the extent of it. The trial court did not err in throwing out the case.
