Opinion
6:22-CV-00730-ADA-JCM
07-08-2024
MAUREEN GREEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, Defendant.
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEFFREY C. MANSKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Lloyd's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50). For the reasons described below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation so the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act, unfair insurance practices, and fraud. Pl.'s Am. Compl. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that her mobile home was damaged due to an overflow from a bathroom toilet on May 14, 2020. Id. at 2. Plaintiff is insured under State Farm's Homeowners Policy No. 85-B8-P134-9. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 2-3, citing Exs. 1, 2.
Plaintiff reported a claim for the toilet overflow to Defendant on May 15, 2020. Id. at 3. Plaintiff informed Defendant that she hired a plumber to work on the claim related issues during her initial report. Id. citing Ex. 4 at 22. Throughout the claim process, Defendant was in constant communication with Plaintiff, Servpro (the contractor through which Plaintiff hired the plumber), and Plaintiff's insurance agent's office to collect information and photos necessary to complete the claim. Id. citing Exs. 3, 4.
On May 21, 2020, Defendant received an invoice from Nagy Plumbing which stated in relevant part that the plumber had “[r]emoved stoppage; Cameraed [sic] line to investigate issue and found sewer line under mobile home has a backfall. The sewer line is full of water currently. This will result in probable continued stoppage until repaired. Mrs. Green opted to not repair at this time.” Id. citing Ex. 5. Defendant immediately approved coverage and issued $2,166.60 to Servpro for water mitigation on May 29, 2020. Id. citing Ex. 4 at 23. Defendant also approved a payment of $2,537.72 to Plaintiff for damage from the plumbing leak. Id. citing Ex. 6.
After receiving payment, Plaintiff lodged various complaints to Defendant regarding Servpro's work. Id. at 4, citing Ex. 4 at 18. Defendant advised Plaintiff that she needed to address her concerns with Servpro as she entered into a contract for the water mitigation work with Servpro, not Defendant. Id. Defendant requested contractor's estimates for additional damage beyond what Defendant had already approved coverage for, but Plaintiff never submitted such information during the claims process. Id. citing Def.'s Exs. 8, 9 at 114:23115:3.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on June 21, 2024. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion expired on July 5, 2024. Local R. for W.D. Tex. CV-7(D)(2). Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's Motion or a motion requesting leave to file an untimely response. Accordingly, the movant's assertions of fact are considered undisputed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). Since the Defendant's assertions of fact are undisputed, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the Court may consider whether Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute is not genuine if the trier of fact could not, after an examination of the record, find for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus., Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 578 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). That said, the moving party can satisfy its burden either by producing evidence negating a material fact or pointing out the absence of evidence supporting a material element of the nonmovant's claim. Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir. 1991). Throughout this analysis, the Court must view the evidence and all factual inferences in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014).
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there is no evidence that Defendant breached the contract. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 5. Plaintiff admitted in her deposition that Defendant paid her for the water damage caused by the overflow. Def.'s Ex. 9 at 166:3-14. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's Complaints in this lawsuit are all related to damage caused by Servpro. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 6. As evidence of this, Defendant compiles a list of Plaintiff's complaints from her deposition that all relate to Servpro. See id. Plaintiff testified that Servpro gouged her walls and door frames, removed skirting from her home that allowed animals to rip out the insulation underneath, broke her dresser, caused water to build up in her air ducts which prevented her from doing dishes, left slime on her floor, broke the stair railing to her door, chain-sawed cabinets, and sliced her floors. Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff's only allegation against Defendant is that it “ruined [her] house by putting a totally green crew in [her] home” to mitigate the water in her home. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 4 at 16:18-21. None of Plaintiff's complaints relate to the water damage, but instead relate to a contractor's alleged destruction of her property during the remediation process. Plaintiff has presented no evidence to establish that Defendant breached any duty it owed to her in the insurance policy. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claims should, therefore, be granted.
Defendant also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's extra-contractual claims, arguing that she cannot maintain an extra-contractual claim without a valid breach of contract claim. Id. at 7 (citations omitted). Under Texas law, an insured cannot maintain extra-contractual claims when the insured cannot maintain a breach of contract claim. State Farm Lloyds v. Page, 315 S.W.3d 525, 532 (Tex. 2010) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Defendant should be granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's extra-contractual claims as well.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) be GRANTED and that final Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant consistent with this Recommendation.
V. OBJECTIONS
The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150-53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.