Full Opinion

Opinion issued October 2, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00112-CV ——————————— SOLAIJA ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A TG’S CRAVINGS, Appellant V. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 434th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 17-DVC-241550 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal by an insured of a take-nothing final judgment rendered in favor of the insurer after a jury trial. The jury found that the insured failed to comply with certain conditions precedent in the insurance contract and that the insurer was prejudiced by those failures. The jury also found that the insurer failed to comply with that insurance contract. The insured now contends that the trial court reversibly erred by submitting jury questions on conditions precedent and prejudice and that the jury’s findings to those questions are immaterial. It also contends that the evidence is legally sufficient to support its recovery on the contract claim. The insured, however, chose to request a partial reporter’s record for this appeal. And the insured failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c). As a result, we must affirm. Incomplete Reporter’s Record Presumptions As a general rule, an appellant has the burden to bring forward a sufficient record showing a trial court’s harmful error and must present a complete record of the evidence received at trial. See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990); Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). As an alternative, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c) allows an appellant to request a partial reporter’s record. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(c). Under that rule, a party who properly designates some of the reporter’s record may appeal without a complete record, and the appellate court must presume that the incomplete record is complete for purposes of the appeal. Id. 34.6(c)(4). But to be entitled to that presumption, the appellant must include “a statement of the points or issues to 2 be presented on appeal and [the appellant] will then be limited to those points or issues.” Id. 34.6(c)(1). If the appellant provides a partial reporter’s record without the required list of issues, we must presume that the omitted portions of the reporter’s record support the trial court's findings—and thus affirm. See Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. 2002) (noting that had appellant failed to submit his statement of points or issues, Rule 34.6 would require appellate court to affirm trial court’s judgment); Richards v. Schion, 969 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Here, the clerk’s record does not contain Solaija Enterprises, LLC d/b/a TG Cravings’s [“Solaija’s”] request for a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(2). Nor does it contain the required statement of points or issues to be presented on appeal. See id. 34.6(b)(1). Because Solaija requested a partial reporter’s record, but did not comply with Rule 34.6(c)―we must presume that the omitted parts of the record are relevant to the disposition of this appeal and support the trial court’s judgment. See Bennett, 96 S.W.3d at 229; Richards, 969 S.W.2d at 133. This presumption is fatal to all of Solaija’s complaints on appeal. First, with respect to Solaija’s legal sufficiency challenge, we must review the record as a whole. See Richards, 969 S.W.2d at 133. But here the partial reporter’s 3 record consists of only the trial exhibits and the jury charge conference. There is no trial testimony included at all. This partial reporter’s record does not allow us to conduct a legal or factual sufficiency review. See Kwik Wash Laundries, Inc. v. McIntyre, 840 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ). But because Solaija did not comply with Rule 34.6(c), we are required to presume that the omitted trial testimony constitutes sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. See Bennett, 96 S.W.3d at 229; Richards, 969 S.W.2d at 133. As a result, Solaija’s legal sufficiency challenge necessarily fails. Next, even if we were to assume that the submission of the jury questions on conditions precedent and prejudice was erroneous, and that the jury’s findings to those questions are immaterial, we must still conduct a harm analysis. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a). In conducting that harm analysis, we must consider the entire record of the case as a whole. Horton v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 692 S.W.3d 112, 138 (Tex. 2024). “To determine when an alleged error in the jury charge is reversible, the reviewing court must consider the pleadings of the parties, the evidence presented at trial, and the charge in its entirety.” Island Recreational Dev. Corp. v. Republic of Tex. Sav. Ass’n, 710 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex. 1986) (emphasis added). Because we must presume that the omitted parts of the record support the trial court’s judgment, we cannot conclude that any error in submitting the jury questions 4 on conditions precedent and prejudice, and any immateriality of those jury findings, is harmful. See Richards, 969 S.W.2d at 133. Accordingly, we overrule all of Solaija’s issues on appeal. Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s take-nothing judgment in all things. Terry Adams Chief Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. 5