The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of the insured in a UIM case but reversed the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest in excess of policy limits.
State Farm Automobile Insurance Company v. Lance Bellis (No. 14-24-00468-CV; November 13. 2025) arose from a dispute between Bellis and his insurer, State Farm, over the amount due under Plaintiff’s UIM policy. After a 2019 accident with the underinsured motorist, Plaintiff sought treatment for a shoulder injury, which required surgery in 2021. One doctor stated that Plaintiff had a previous injury to the same shoulder in 2011, which was rehabilitated through physical therapy. Plaintiff’s surgeon testified that the prior injury had no relation to Plaintiff’s injury from the accident. The surgeon required Bellis to take five months off from work after the surgery. The jury concluded that the other driver was 100% at fault and that Plaintiff suffered $200,000.01 in damages in past lost earning capacity, future lost earning capacity, and past medical expenses. The trial court ordered State Farm to pay the full policy limit of $100,000 plus an unspecified amount of prejudgment and post-judgment interest. It also denied Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Wise, the court of appeals affirmed as modified. State Farm argued that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish a causal link between the accident and damages awarded by the jury because Plaintiff’s surgeon’s testimony as to causation was conclusory. The court rejected this argument, finding that the surgeon’s opinion was based on an examination and Plaintiff’s medical history and did not need to disprove other theories of Plaintiff’s injury, but “must rest in reasonable medical probability.” State Farm failed to show evidence of a different cause of injury which the surgeon would be required to rule out.
The court, however, agreed with State Farm that it did not owe prejudgment interest in excess of UIM policy limits. Since the jury’s award exceeded the $100,000 policy limit, the court ruled out the Cavnar-type of prejudgement interest, which is based on the tortfeasor’s obligations, not the insurer’s. Under Cavnar, the insurer may only be liable for the prejudgment interest that the tortfeasor would have owed up to the UIM policy limits. On the other hand, the Henson-type of interest only applies in cases where the insurer withholds policy benefits following the establishment of the tortfeasor’s liability. Since there was no record of State Farm withholding benefits in this case, the court modified the trial court’s judgement to remove the prejudgement interest.
In his cross-appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for attorney’s fees. Here, however, the trial court did not submit the attorney’s fees issue to the jury because the first trial was limited to liability for the accident and the parties agreed hold the issue. The trial court thus properly denied Plaintiff’s request that the court determine fees after trial.
TCJL Legal Intern Haden Knobloch researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
