WANDA M. PAGE, Appellant
STATE FARM LLOYDS, Appellee
From the 18th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. C200400452
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
AL SCOGGINS Justice
In ten issues, appellant, Wanda M. Page, advancing pro se, challenges a final judgment entered in favor of appellee, State Farm Lloyds. We affirm.
The dispute in this case is more than ten years old, and this is not the first time this case has been before this Court. See generally Page v. State Farm Lloyds, 259 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008), rev'd in part, 315 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2010). As the parties are familiar with the facts in this case, we will only provide the highlights. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
"State Farm Lloyds issued Page a Texas Standardized Homeowners Policy— Form B ("HO-B") to insure her dwelling and its contents." Page, 315 S.W.3d at 526. "In June 2001, Page discovered mold and water damage to her home and some of her personal property." Id. Page filed a claim under her homeowner's policy with State Farm Lloyds. After various assessments, it was determined that there were leaks in the sanitary sewer lines that required remediation. Id. Thus, in January 2002, State Farm Lloyds provided Page with a check in the amount of $12, 644 to cover remediation and repair of her dwelling and $13, 631 to cover personal-property remediation and three months living expenses while the work was performed. Id. In May 2002, Page requested additional funds to repair damage to her carpet, which State Farm Lloyds refused to pay. Id. "A dispute ensued over the amounts needed to fully remediate and repair the home and its contents." Id. at 526-27.
Later, Page filed suit against State Farm Lloyds asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, and DTPA and Insurance Code violations. Id. at 527. About a year after she filed suit, Page provided State Farm Lloyds with an estimate for remediating her attic, which resulted in State Farm Lloyds paying Page an additional $13, 042. Id.
Thereafter, State Farm Lloyds filed no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment, claiming entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on Page's breach of contract claim because the HO-B policy expressly excluded coverage for all mold damage and because there was no evidence that Page was owed additional money. Id. State Farm Lloyds also argued that summary judgment was proper as to Page's extra-contractual claims. Id.
The trial court initially denied State Farm Lloyds's summary-judgment motions; however, the trial court reversed course when presented with the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. 2006) on a motion for reconsideration filed by State Farm Lloyds. Id. Page appealed the trial court's granting of the motions for summary judgment, and this Court reversed, holding that Page's HO-B policy covered mold damage to the dwelling and its contents. Id. (citing Page, 259 S.W.3d at 257).
Subsequently, State Farm Lloyds filed a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed Page's HO-B policy and determined that "when a plumbing leak results in mold contamination, the policy covers mold damage to personal property but not to the dwelling." Id. at 526, 531. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that Page's contractual and extra-contractual claims pertaining to alleged mold damage to her house could not survive and reversed that portion of this Court's judgment. Id. at 532-33. However, the Supreme Court also concluded that Page's contractual and extra-contractual claims relating to alleged mold damage to her personal property survived and affirmed that portion of this Court's judgment. Id. at 532-33. The case was then remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at 532-33.
On remand, the trial court conducted a jury trial on Page's remaining claims. At this time, Page was represented by two attorneys and an additional consultant/attorney, who assisted trial counsel with voir dire. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury rejected all of Page's claims. Thereafter, the trial court signed a judgment that Page take nothing from State Farm Lloyds. The final judgment also awarded State Farm Lloyds $16, 869.83 in court costs. This pro se appeal followed.
II. The Record
At the outset of our analysis of Page's issues, we recognize that the record in this case includes three reporter's record volumes—one of which is labeled "Excerpts of Voir Dire Proceedings." In addition, the record includes three clerk's record volumes. Nevertheless, Page has filed a pro se "Optional Appendix, " wherein Page includes several documents that were not formally included in the record. With regard to this, we note that we may not consider matters outside the appellate record, and attachment of documents as appendices to an appellate brief does not constitute formal inclusion in the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.1 ("The appellate record consists of the clerk's record and, if necessary to the appeal, the reporter's record."); see also Kuntze v. Hall, 371 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, order); Poston v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., No. 14-11-00485-CV, 2012 Tex.App. LEXIS 3608, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] ...