When Is a Verified Denial Required in Answering a Texas Lawsuit?

Facing a lawsuit in Texas can be overwhelming, especially when it comes to crafting your response. One critical aspect often overlooked by defendants is the requirement for a verified denial under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (TRCP) 93. Failing to include a verified denial where it's required can lead to admissions that doom your defense before trial even begins. At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, a Dallas-based law firm specializing in business and civil litigation, we've helped countless clients avoid these pitfalls and mount strong defenses in Texas courts.

In this blog, we'll break down when a verified denial is necessary, the specific scenarios outlined in TRCP 93, the severe consequences of non-compliance, and real-world case examples. Whether you're dealing with a contract dispute, sworn account claim, or venue challenge, understanding these rules is essential for protecting your rights.

If you're answering a Texas lawsuit and need expert guidance, contact our experienced litigators today at 972-248-8080 or visit our Dallas, Plano, Frisco, Houston or Austin offices.

What Is a General Denial in a Texas Lawsuit?

A general denial in Texas is a simple way for a defendant to say, "I disagree with everything the plaintiff is claiming." Instead of addressing each specific point in the plaintiff’s petition, a general denial broadly rejects all allegations. This forces the plaintiff to prove their case in court. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (TRCP) 92, a general denial is a standard part of responding to a lawsuit in Texas state courts, unlike in federal courts.

What Is a Verified Denial in Texas Civil Procedure?

A verified denial is a sworn statement, typically attached as an affidavit to your answer, that specifically denies certain key allegations in the plaintiff's petition. Unlike a general denial—which broadly disputes all claims without verification—a verified denial must be made under oath and address matters listed in TRCP 93. This rule ensures that defenses raising fundamental challenges to the lawsuit's validity are not asserted lightly.

The Purpose of Requiring Verification Under TRCP 93

TRCP 93 promotes efficiency in litigation by forcing parties to affirm under penalty of perjury that their denial is truthful. As the Texas Supreme Court has emphasized, verification prevents "frivolous" challenges and streamlines proceedings by deeming unverified pleas as admissions. Without it, courts treat the allegation as conclusively true, shifting the burden entirely to the plaintiff on other issues.

This requirement applies unless the truth of the matter "appears of record," meaning it's already established in court documents. Verified denials can be filed in original or amended answers, but amendments must typically be submitted at least seven days before trial to avoid waiver.

Key Scenarios When a Verified Denial Is Required in a Texas Lawsuit

TRCP 93 enumerates 18 specific matters that demand verification. Not every denial needs verification—a general denial under TRCP 92 suffices for most factual disputes. However, for these "certain pleas," skipping verification can be fatal. Below, we highlight the most common situations, with direct references to the rule:

• Challenging Venue: TRCP 93(1)

If you believe the lawsuit was filed in the wrong county, you must verify this denial. TRCP 93(1) states: "That the suit is not commenced in the proper county." Without verification, the court presumes venue is proper, and you waive your objection.

• Disputing Capacity to Sue or Be Sued: TRCP 93(2) and 93(3)

Capacity issues are frequent in business litigation. Under TRCP 93(2), verify if "the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, or that the defendant has not legal capacity to be sued." Similarly, TRCP 93(3) requires verification for claims that "the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, or that the defendant is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued."

For example, if a plaintiff sues as a corporation but lacks proper formation, or if you're sued individually when only your business entity is liable, a verified denial is mandatory.

• Alleging Another Suit Pending or Defect of Parties: TRCP 93(4) and 93(5)

Abatement defenses, like claiming "another suit [is] pending in this State between the same parties for the same claim" (TRCP 93(4)), require verification. The same holds for "defect of parties plaintiff or defendant" under TRCP 93(5), such as missing indispensable parties.

• Denying Execution or Genuineness of Instruments: TRCP 93(7) and 93(8)

Contract disputes often hinge on documents. TRCP 93(7) mandates verification for a "denial of execution by himself or by his authority of any instrument in writing upon which [the] pleading is founded." TRCP 93(8) extends this to denials of the "genuineness of [an] endorsement or assignment." Without it, the instrument is deemed genuine and fully proved.

• Responding to Sworn Accounts or Usury Claims: TRCP 93(10) and 93(11)

In sworn account suits—common in debt collection—TRCP 93(10) requires a verified denial of "an account which is the foundation of the plaintiff's action, and supported by affidavit." For usury defenses, TRCP 93(11) demands verification that "the contract sued upon is usurious," or else no evidence of usury may be introduced.

See also TRCP 185: Denial of Suit on Sworn Account: “[a claim supported by affidavit as described in Rule 185] shall be taken as prima facie evidence thereof, unless the party resisting such claim shall file a written denial, under oath.”

• Insurance and Notice Issues: TRCP 93(12) and Others

Denials of "notice and proof of loss or claim for damage" in insurance cases must be verified under TRCP 93(12), or the notice is presumed given. Similar rules apply to assumed names (93(13)), bankruptcy discharges (93(14)), and workers' compensation specifics.

• Assumed Name/Trade Name Denial: TRCP 93(14) 

That a party plaintiff or defendant is not doing business under an assumed name or trade name as alleged. TRCP 93(14) 

• Auto-Insurance Company Defendant Denial of Plaintiff's Compliance with Conditions Precedent: TRCP 93(15)

In the trial of any case brought against an automobile insurance company by an insured under the provisions of an insurance policy in force providing protection against uninsured motorists, an allegation that the insured has complied with all the terms of the policy as a condition precedent to bringing the suit shall be presumed to be true unless denied by verified pleadings which may be upon information and belief.

• Statutory Catchall: TRCP 93 (16) 

Any other matter required by statute to be pleaded under oath.

The Serious Consequences of Failing to File a Verified Denial

Omitting a required verified denial doesn't just weaken your position—it can eliminate your defense entirely. Under TRCP 93, unverified pleas are "not presumed to be true" only if verified; otherwise, they are deemed admitted. This admission is conclusive, barring later evidence or amendments in most cases. Texas courts strictly enforce this. In Huddleston v. Case Power Equipment Co., 748 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, writ denied), the court held that "because defendant failed to file a sworn denial, he had waived his right to introduce evidence disputing the account." Similarly, in John Flood of DC Inc. v. Supermedia, Inc., No. 05-12-00425-CV, 2013 WL 1820000 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 30, 2013, no pet.), the appellate court ruled: "When a case falls within one of the categories defined by rule 93, a general denial is insufficient; the defendant must provide a verified denial." Late filings rarely cure the defect—amendments must comply with TRCP 63 deadlines, and even then, courts may deem the issue waived if it prejudices the plaintiff.

Texas Case Law Examples for Verified Denials: Lessons from the Courts

Texas appellate decisions underscore the high stakes. Consider these illustrative cases:

• Capacity Challenges Waived: Sneed v. Webre

In Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. 2015), the Texas Supreme Court addressed a capacity dispute under TRCP 93(2). The defendants failed to file a verified denial, leading the court to affirm: "When capacity is contested, Rule 93(2) requires that a verified plea be filed denying capacity. Id. at 146." The result? The plaintiff's capacity was deemed established, dooming the defense. This Court held that the shareholder plaintiff was entitled to recover because the cross-defendants waived their right to complain about the capacity in which the shareholder plaintiff sued them by failing to file a verified denial under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93(2).

• Instrument Execution Denied Without Verification: City of Oak Ridge North v. Mendes

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals in City of Oak Ridge North v. Mendes, 339 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.), enforced TRCP 93(7) strictly: "Under Rule 93(7) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is required to file a verified denial of any instrument in writing upon which a claim is founded." The city's unverified denial of a contract's execution was treated as an admission, upholding summary judgment for the plaintiff.

• Sworn Account Defenses Crushed: Oliver v. Carter & Co. IRR, Inc.

In a sworn account context, Oliver v. Carter & Co. IRR, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.), the court explained: "Rule 185 requires that the party resisting a sworn account file a written denial, under oath and comply with Rule 93(10) requiring a special verified denial." Without it, the defendants could not contest the account, leading to a default-like judgment.

These cases highlight a pattern: Courts often will show no mercy for procedural oversights, and that may result in affirmed judgments.