the County Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court No. C-850
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
three issues, appellant, Apple Sport Chevrolet, Inc.
("Apple"), challenges a judgment entered in favor
of appellee, Robert Chase Rolston, for damages resulting from
the repair of Rolston's pickup truck. Because we sustain
Apple's complaints as to damages, we affirm, in part, and
modify the judgment, in part, conditioned on a remittitur of
Rolston asserted a DTPA claim against Apple, claiming that he
"sought services on or about July 26, 2014 by taking his
2007 Chevrolet pickup in for repairs, " which were
"not done properly causing the vehicle to be
towed." In a DTPA-demand letter that was attached as an
exhibit to his original petition, Rolston stated the
following, in relevant part:
After you [Apple] represented to Mr. Rolston that his vehicle
was ready for pick up on 7-29-14 and after driving
approximately 7-10 miles the vehicle stopped and would not
restart necessitating him incurring a tow bill of $125 and
taking it to a diesel mechanic in Franklin, Texas.
My investigation in this matter reveals that this vehicle was
taken to Garcia's Auto Repair on 7-25-14 and Mr. Garcia
did not see any leaks on the fuel filter or the housing. The
bill from Apple-Sport reports that there was leaking on the
housing which was not true. Also Apple-Sport recommended
replacing all of the injectors on the engine for a total of
approximately $10, 000, which was not true. Dwayne, the
diesel mechanic at CBS in Franklin, Texas examined it and
said the injectors were fine.
Apple-Sport Chevrolet has clearly misrepresented its repair
bill and did not fix the problem after billing Mr. Rolston
Demand is hereby made for the repayment of the repair bill of
$706.31 plus $125 in towing fees. This notice if being sent
under the Texas Deceptive Trade [Practices] Act for the
knowing conduct of Apple-Sport Chevrolet in misrepresenting
the bill and not properly repairing the vehicle in question.
response to Rolston's original petition, Apple filed an
answer, asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Apple also
filed motions for summary judgment, which were denied. This
case proceeded to a jury trial.
conclusion of the trial, the jury found that: (1) Apple
engaged in unconscionable conduct that caused Rolston
damages; and (2) Apple knowingly engaged in false, misleading
or deceptive acts that Rolston relied on to his detriment and
that was the producing cause of his damages. The jury awarded
Rolston $706.31 in benefit-of-the-bargain damages, $75 in
out-of-pocket damages, $50 in expenses, $250 in lost profits,
$80 in lost time, $5, 000 in exemplary damages, and $2, 500
in attorney's fees. Subsequently, the trial court entered
a final judgment reflecting the jury's findings,
including a damages award of $8, 661.31 against Apple.
Apple filed a motion for JNOV, which was denied by the trial
court. Apple also filed a motion for new trial that was
overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
329b(c). This appeal followed.