From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:06:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FE25.A98354F0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16480 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FE25.A98354F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83722 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 16, = 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court=20 of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-00694-CV

____________

 

YIGAL=20 BOSCH, = Appellant

 

V.

 

PROVIDENT=20 AMERICAN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 113th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 03-21015B

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Yigal=20 Bosch appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Provident = American Life=20 and Health Insurance Company.  In five issues, Bosch argues = that the=20 trial court erred: (1) in finding that Provident properly = cancelled his=20 insurance policy, (2) in finding that Provident did not breach the = insurance policy, (3) in finding that he did not suffer mental = anguish and=20 damage to his credit as a result of Provident=3Ds acts and=20 omissions, (4) in finding that Provident did not recklessly and=20 intentionally deny him coverage, and (5) by failing to make = findings of=20 fact and conclusions of law.  We affirm. =

I. =20 Background

Bosch=20 originally filed claims against Provident, Dallas General Life = Insurance=20 Co., and Ceres Group, Inc. alleging breach of contract and = intentional,=20 negligent, and grossly negligent infliction of mental distress = related to=20 health insurance policies he obtained or attempted to obtain from=20 them.  The trial court granted summary judgment against all = of=20 Bosch=3Ds=20 claims.  On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded=20 Bosch=3Ds breach=20 of contract causes of action against Provident and Dallas General=20 (ABosch=20 I@). =20 Bosch v. Dallas Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 14-04-00661-CV, = 2005 WL=20 757254, at *9 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] Apr. 5, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).  We also = reversed and=20 remanded certain damages claims related to Bosch=3Ds breach=20 of contract cause of action against Provident.  The remainder = of the=20 summary judgment was affirmed.  Id. =

 Following=20 remand, Bosch amended his petition to include claims against = Provident for=20 (1) breach of the insurance agreement, (2) mental anguish, (3) = damage to=20 his credit, (4) reckless and intentional denial of his application = for=20 insurance in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 300gg C, 2, A, and (5) = attorney=3Ds=20 fees.  Provident moved for summary judgment on both = no-evidence and=20 traditional grounds against all of Bosch=3Ds claims=20 in its motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment.  = The=20 trial court granted summary judgment against Bosch on all claims = except=20 for his breach of contract cause of action.  Provident filed = a motion=20 for reconsideration with respect to the breach of contract cause = of=20 action, upon which the trial court granted summary judgment.  = The=20 record contains no response from Bosch to Provident=3Ds summary=20 judgment motion or its motion for reconsideration.[1] =20 Following its dismissal of all of Bosch=3Ds claims=20 against Provident, the trial court severed all claims against = Provident=20 and directed that such cause be final.[2]=20

II. =20 Analysis

A.     =20 Breach of the Insurance Agreement

Bosch=3Ds first=20 two issues address the trial court=3Ds=20 dismissal of his breach of contract cause of action.  In = considering=20 the trial court=3Ds grant of=20 summary judgment, we utilize the normal standards of review.  = See Tex. R. Civ. = P.=20 166a(c), (i); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 = S.W.3d 742,=20 750-51 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. = Mgmt.=20 Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985) (traditional = standard). =20 Because the record contains no response to Provident=3Ds motions=20 for summary judgment, the only issue before us is whether the = grounds=20 expressly presented by Provident=3Ds motions=20 at trial are insufficient as a matter of law to support the = summary=20 judgment.  See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin = Auth., 589=20 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979); accord Tello v. Bank One, = N.A.,=20 218 S.W.3d 109, 119 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).  In other words, Bosch cannot=20 successfully argue that there is a disputed issue of material fact = because=20 he has waived the issue by failing to present it to the trial = court. =20 See Haynes v. City of Beaumont, 35 S.W.3d 166, 174 (Tex.=20 App.CTexarkana=20 2000, no pet.).  Furthermore, if a trial court grants summary = judgment without specifying the grounds relied on, the reviewing = court=20 must affirm if any of the summary judgment grounds is = meritorious. =20 Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d = 211,=20 216 (Tex. 2003).  The appellant must assign error and provide = argument challenging each independent ground for summary judgment, = or the=20 judgment will be affirmed on the ground not complained of on = appeal. =20 Wortham v. Dow Chem. Co., 179 S.W.3d 189, 198 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see also Hagberg v. City of = Pasadena,=20 224 S.W.3d 477, 480 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (AAlthough=20 we construe issues presented liberally, failure to raise an issue = on=20 appeal waives error on the issue.@). =20

The trial=20 court in this case did not designate which grounds it relied on in = granting summary judgment; therefore, we must analyze all of the = grounds=20 and affirm on any of them that are meritorious.  = Knott, 128=20 S.W.3d at 216.  Provident set forth the following grounds = supporting=20 its motions for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause = of=20 action: (1) Provident negated that a valid contract existed as of = the date=20 Bosch=3Ds alleged=20 damages were incurred; (2) the damages Bosch seeks to recover are = not a=20 proper measure of damages for wrongful cancellation; (3) = Bosch=3Ds failure=20 to accept Provident=3Ds offer of=20 replacement coverage bars his breach of contract claim as a matter = of law;=20 (4) Provident conclusively proved the affirmative defense of = waiver of the=20 right to recover medical expense damages by showing Bosch = voluntarily=20 relinquished a known right; (5) Provident negated any damages by = showing=20 that Bosch did not incur a loss prior to or in obtaining = replacement=20 coverage; (6) there is no evidence that Bosch incurred any = recoverable=20 damages for wrongful cancellation; (7) Provident negated the = causation=20 element; (8) Bosch produced no evidence of causation; and (9) = Provident=20 conclusively proved Bosch=3Ds failure=20 to mitigate his damages. Bosch does not address several of these = grounds=20 here on appeal.  Instead, he appears to revisit the same = issues that=20 were decided under Bosch I. 

The=20 contract provision which Bosch claims was breached (both now on = appeal and=20 in Bosch I) is a notice provision in the insurance agreement with=20 Provident that provides:

The covered=20 member=3Ds coverage under = the policy=20 will end at 12:01 A.M. standard time in the covered = member=3Ds state of = residence on the=20 earliest of:

. . . the premium = due date=20 following the date which we terminate all Certificates under this = policy=20 in the covered member=3Ds state of = residence on the=20 covered member=3Ds effective date of = coverage.=20 We will give the covered member 90 days notice prior to the date = of=20 termination and will offer the covered member coverage under any = other=20 policy which we are currently marketing in the covered = member=3Ds state;=20 or

the=20 premium due date following the date which we terminate all = Certificates in=20 the covered member=3Ds state of=20 residence on the covered member=3Ds=20 effective date of coverage. We will give the covered member 180 = days=20 notice prior to the date of termination . . . .  We can only=20 terminate the policy upon 90 days prior written notice if we offer = the=20 policy holder coverage, on a guaranteed basis, under any other = policy=20 which we are currently marketing or upon 180 days prior written = notice if=20 we terminate all of our policies in the state of = delivery.

In Bosch=20 I, we found that Provident had not conclusively proven the = provision of=20 proper notice of cancellation as required by the above-referenced=20 provision.  Bosch, 2005 WL 757254, at *3.  = Provident had=20 argued, pursuant to Sudduth v. Commonwealth County Mutual = Insurance=20 Co., 454 S.W.2d 196, 196-97 (Tex. 1970), that evidence of = mailing the=20 notice of cancellation was conclusive proof of proper = notice. =20 Bosch, 2005 WL 757254, at *2.  In holding that = Provident had=20 not proven sufficient notice, we found that the contract provision = in the=20 Bosch-Provident agreement differs from those in the Sudduth = line of=20 cases in that the Bosch-Provident agreement requires receipt of = notice, or=20 actual notice.  Id.  Thus, we held, mere evidence = that=20 the notice was mailed is insufficient under the Bosch-Provident = agreement=20 to show receipt of notice.  Id. at *3.

In his=20 first issue now on appeal, Bosch essentially restates our decision = as=20 decided in Bosch I that mailing of notice is insufficient evidence = of=20 notice under the Bosch-Provident agreement.  In support of = his second=20 issue claiming that the trial court erred in finding no breach of = the=20 agreement, Bosch argues, without citation to the record or case = law, that=20 because he submitted his claims within 180 days of the alleged = date he=20 learned that his Provident policy had been cancelled, Provident = wrongfully=20 refused to pay his claims and therefore breached the insurance=20 agreement.  These are the only two issues Bosch raises here = on appeal=20 with respect to the trial court=3Ds judgment=20 on his breach of contract cause of action.

Bosch=3Ds two=20 issues fail to attack all of the grounds Provident relied on in = moving for=20 summary judgment on remand.  Bosch=3Ds first=20 issue clearly addresses matters already decided under Bosch I and = which=20 Provident has conceded to be the law of the case.  Under his = second=20 issue, Bosch seems to be arguing that Provident violated the = provision in=20 the insurance agreement that states A[w]e can=20 only terminate the policy . . . upon 180 days prior written notice = if we=20 terminate all of our policies in the state of = delivery.@  In=20 making these arguments, Bosch fails to address most of the grounds = that=20 Provident relied on for summary judgment.  In a reply brief, = Bosch=20 does directly respond, without citations to the record or case = law, to=20 some of Provident=3Ds=20 arguments; however, we find these attacks to be = insufficient. =20 See Tex. R. App. = P.=20 38.1; Hagberg, 224 S.W.3d at 480-81 (A[A]n issue=20 raised for the first time in a reply brief is ordinarily=20 waived.@) (quoting=20 N.P. v. Methodist Hosp., 190 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied)); Dallas County. v. = Gonzales, 183=20 S.W.3d 94, 104 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 2006, pet. denied) (AA reply=20 brief may not be used to raise new issues.@).=20

Several of=20 the grounds on which Provident relies for summary judgment in this = appeal=20 appear to be similar to those relied upon in Bosch I.[3] =20 We note that the law of the case doctrine does not necessarily = preclude=20 these issues from being raised again by Provident.  See = Hudson v.=20 Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986).  = Nevertheless, it=20 appears that Provident raises at least one ground not previously = addressed=20 in Bosch I.[4] =20 Provident argues that under the terms of the insurance policy,=20 Bosch=3Ds coverage=20 automatically terminated once Bosch received replacement coverage = from=20 Dallas General (based on a provision independent of the notice=20 provision).  Therefore, Provident argues, once Bosch obtained = coverage from Dallas General, the insurance policy terminated and, = as a=20 result, did not exist when Bosch subsequently underwent surgery = for=20 angioplasty.  In other words, even assuming the notice = provision is=20 interpreted as Bosch interprets it (requiring 180-day notice), = Provident=20 argues there is an independent provision in the insurance = agreement which=20 terminated the insurance policy prior to the accrual of his = claims. =20 Because Bosch has failed to respond to this ground for summary = judgment,=20 we affirm the trial court=3Ds=20 dismissal of his breach of contract cause of action on that = ground. =20 See Wortham,179 S.W.3d at 198.[5] =20 We overrule issues one and two.

B.     =20 Damages

In his=20 third issue, Bosch contends that the trial court erred in finding = he did=20 not suffer mental anguish and damage to his credit as a result of=20 Provident=3Ds acts and=20 omissions.  We first note that Bosch labeled these two claims = as=20 separate causes of action in his amended petition following = remand. =20 However, in Bosch I, which Bosch references as controlling the = disposition=20 of these claims in this appeal, we addressed these two claims as = damages=20 related to Bosch=3Ds breach=20 of contract cause of action.  See Bosch, 2005 = WL=20 757254, at *4 (analyzing mental anguish and damage to credit under = the=20 ADamages=20 Issues@ = section).  If we construe Bosch=3Ds claims=20 as damage issues related to his breach of contract cause of = action, then=20 those damages fall with the breach of contract cause of action = which we=20 find was properly dismissed.  Assuming arguendo that Bosch = intends=20 for these claims to be separate causes of action, the trial court = still=20 did not err in dismissing those claims.[6] =20 With respect to Bosch=3Ds mental=20 anguish cause of action, Bosch fails to offer any authority (at = trial or=20 on appeal) providing for a separate cause of action for mental=20 anguish.  As mentioned above, Bosch brought various claims in = Bosch I=20 for infliction of emotional distress; however, dismissal of those = claims=20 was affirmed in Bosch I and would therefore be precluded from = being raised=20 again on remand.  See Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630.  = In=20 regards to his damage to credit cause of action, Bosch again fails = to cite=20 any law providing for such a cause of action.  Although = damages for=20 harm to credit reputation exist in law, such as under a violation = of the=20 DTPA or Insurance Code cause of action, see Provident American=20 Insurance Co. v. Castaneda, 988 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex. = 1998);=20 St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Dal-Worth Tank Co., = 974=20 S.W.2d 51, 52-53 (Tex. 1998), Bosch has failed to offer any = evidence=20 supporting the elements of such causes of action.  = Consequently, the=20 trial court did not err in dismissing Bosch=3Ds claims=20 for mental anguish and damage to his credit.  We overrule=20 Bosch=3Ds third=20 issue.

C.     =20 Violation of 42 U.S.C. ' = 300gg

In his=20 fourth issue, Bosch complains that the trial court erred = Ain finding=20 that Provident did not recklessly and intentionally denied [sic] = Bosch=20 coverage.@ =20 Bosch=3Ds amended=20 petition alleged that AProvident=20 . . . recklessly and intentionally [denied] the [his] application = for=20 insurance in violation of 42 U.S.C. ' = 300gg C,=20 2, A.@  In=20 arguing such a violation, Bosch alleged that after he applied for = coverage=20 with Central Reserve Life Insurance (ACRL@), who he=20 claimed to be the alter-ego of Provident, CRL waited until the = time period=20 under 42 U.S.C. ' = 300gg for=20 applying as an eligible individual for health coverage expired, = thus=20 preventing him from Aobtaining=20 coverage under the eligible individual laws.@ =20 Setting aside the question of whether Bosch can bring a claim = against=20 Provident for the actions of CRL, it is clear that no private = right of=20 action exists under 42 U.S.C. ' = 300gg.  See Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth. v. Denver=20 Publ=3Dg=20 Co., 340 F.=20 Supp. 2d 1142, 1145 (D. Colo. 2004); Brock v. Provident Am. = Ins. Co.,=20 144 F. Supp. 2d 652, 657 (N.D. Tex. 2001); = O=3DDonnell v.=20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming, 173 F.=20 Supp. 2d 1176, 1180 (D. Wyo. 2001).  We overrule = Bosch=3Ds fourth=20 issue.

D.     =20 Failure to File Findings of Fact/Conclusions of=20 Law

In his=20 final issue, Bosch argues that the trial court reversibly erred by = failing=20 to make findings of fact and conclusions of law upon his = request.  In=20 the context of summary judgment, it is improper for a trial court = to make=20 findings of fact and conclusions of law.  IKB Indus. = (Nigeria)=20 Ltd. v. Pro‑Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1997) = (citing=20 Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994)); = Baker=20 Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Hennig Prod. Co., 164 = S.W.3d 438,=20 442 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).  Bosch=3Ds=20 contention is therefore without merit.  We overrule his final = issue.

We affirm=20 the trial court=3Ds=20 judgment.

 

 

/s/     =20 Adele Hedges

Chief = Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 16, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Hudson and=20 Guzman.

 

 

 


[1]  Bosch attached an affidavit = titled=20 APlaintiff Yigal Bosch=3Ds Affidavit in Support of His Response = to=20 Defendant=3Ds Motion for Summary = Judgment@ to his brief.  We cannot consider = documents=20 attached to an appellate brief that do not appear in the record.=20 Castano v. San Felipe Agric., Mfg., & Irrigation Co., = 147=20 S.W.3d 444, 453 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 2004, no pet.); Till v. = Thomas,=20 10 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, no = pet.).  In=20 addition, Provident claimed in its motion for summary judgment, = and Bosch=20 has not denied, that Bosch was unsuccessful in his attempt to file = an=20 untimely response, because he did not obtain leave of court to = file such a=20 response.  See Tex. R.=20 Civ. P. 166a(c).   

[2]  At that point in time, the trial = court had=20 also granted summary judgment with respect to all claims against = Dallas=20 General; however, Dallas General still had a counterclaim pending = against=20 Bosch.

[3]  For instance, following remand, = Provident=20 moved for summary judgment on several grounds related to causation = and=20 mitigation of damages arguing that Bosch=3Ds damages were not foreseeable, and that = Bosch=20 could have taken certain actions to fully replace his coverage = once he=20 learned that his policy with Provident had been cancelled.  = These=20 grounds appear to be similar to those relied upon by Provident in = Bosch I,=20 although Provident=3Ds discussion of foreseeability is new in = this=20 appeal.  See Bosch, 2005 WL 757254, at *3 (analyzing=20 Provident=3Ds causation and mitigation of damages = grounds for=20 summary judgment). 

[4]  It is also proper under the law = of the case=20 doctrine to raise new issues on remand.  See Hudson, = 711=20 S.W.2d at 630 (A[T]he doctrine [law of the case] does = not=20 necessarily apply when either the issues or the facts presented at = successive appeals are not substantially the same as those = involved on the=20 first trial.@).

[5]  We make no judgment on the = validity of=20 Provident=3Ds grounds for summary judgment on=20 Bosch=3Ds breach of contract cause of action; = rather, our=20 disposition is forced by the fact that Bosch has failed to meet = his burden=20 as an appellant in attacking all grounds of Provident=3Ds summary judgment.  =

[6]  Bosch would not be prevented from = bringing=20 new causes of action on remand from Bosch I, assuming the new = causes of=20 action are not substantially the same as issues already decided in = Bosch=20 I.  See Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630.  Bosch, = however, bases his argument in this appeal on the law of the case = from=20 Bosch I in which we analyzed his mental anguish and damage to his = credit=20 claims as damages related to his breach of contract cause of = action,=20 suggesting that he intends the two claims to be analyzed here as = damage=20 claims.  =20

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FE25.A98354F0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FE25.A98354F0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FE25.A98354F0--