HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has halved a mental anguish damages award against Oak Creek Homes, finding the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings for one of the plaintiffs in the case.
In 2018, Juan and Kellie Allen purchased a manufactured home built by Oak Creek. Two years later, they sued the company for breach of implied warranty alleging that it “over crimped” a pipe, causing a water leak that resulted in water damage and mold in the home.
Court records show that at trial the Allens testified about the mental anguish that they allegedly suffered, with Juan saying that Oak Creek “put us through a roller coaster of emotions” and that the incident affected his sleep.
“When we did move back in the house, my fear was the electric,” Juan testified. “It had already sat for four months and the rest of the time that we decided not to move in. My fear is we’re going to go to sleep and this thing is going to arc and cause a fire and we’re just going to die.”
Kellie testified that she worried about how the experience affected the other family members who lived with them, explaining “it is a lot of stress being worried about other people.”
She testified that she experienced trouble sleeping in combination with general worries, stress, and frustration.
The jury found that Oak Creek’s failure to comply with the warranty was the producing cause of damages, awarding the couple $20,000 each for past mental anguish. The trial court signed a final judgment expressly incorporating the jury’s findings.
Oak Creek appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the mental anguish damages awarded to the Allens.
“We conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the award of mental anguish damages to Juan but not legally sufficient to support the award of mental anguish damages to Kellie,” the opinion states, adding that Kellie’s testimony “does nothing but cite the existence of ‘mere emotions.’”
Justices modified the judgment to cut Kellie’s mental anguish award, lowering the judgment from $40,000 to $20,000.
Appeals case No. 14-24-00857-CV
