Allowing Admissions to be Deemed Admitted Defeats Suit
Post 4889
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZhkYqrW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gwvXFp6H and at https://lnkd.in/gre_Ng6H and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Lynette Januzi appealed from the trial court's order granting summary judgment against her and in favor of American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance (AMCI) and Melissa Ann Workman. She asserts the trial court erred in considering deemed admissions and there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support her claims.
In Lynnette Januzi v. American Modern Property And Casualty Insurance And Melissa Ann Workman, No. 12-24-00016-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler (August 29, 2024) the Court of Appeals applied Texas law.
BACKGROUND
In March 2019, Januzi obtained an insurance policy from her agent, Workman, through AMCI. The policy has a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. She had a water damage claim and over a period of AMCI issued additional payments to pay contractors and various damages making the total disbursement equal to the $75,000 limit. On January 22, AMCI notified Januzi that the last payment constituted the balance of the water damage limit.
Januzi took issue with the $75,000 water damage limit, claiming she was unaware of the sublimit. She further claims that AMCI failed to adequately evaluate and pay her claim. Januzi also believed that her agent failed to provide a policy providing sufficient coverage and that there was a conspiracy between the agent and insurance company to underpay claims. As part of the discovery process, AMCI and Workman sent Januzi requests for admissions. Although Januzi responded to other discovery requests, she did not respond to the admissions request.
In November, AMCI and Workman filed a motion for summary judgment, emphasizing that Januzi failed to respond to the admissions and that they are considered deemed admitted. Ultimately, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Januzi's claims.
DEEMED ADMISSIONS
In Texas, once an action is filed, a party may serve written requests for admissions that can encompass "any matter within the scope of discovery, including statements of opinion or of fact or of the applications of law to fact . . ." If the opposing party does not serve responses to the admissions requests within thirty days, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted against the party without the necessity of a court order.
Withdrawal of deemed admissions is permitted upon a showing of good cause but Januzi has yet to request the deemed admissions be withdrawn or amended. Because the requests for admissions were attached to the motion for summary judgment, the trial court could properly consider them.
The deemed admissions were the controlling evidence before the trial court at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, and the court could not properly have considered affidavits that attempted to controvert those admissions
ANALYSIS
In their motion, AMCI and Workman specifically relied on the following deemed admissions:
1 Admit that you signed the application for the insurance policy attached as Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
2 Admit that you authorized and approved the insurance coverage amounts stated in the application for insurance.
3 Admit that you were aware of the water damage limit at the time you signed the application for the insurance policy found in Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
4 Admit that the water damage limit under the policy is $75,000.
5 Admit that Defendant paid the water damage limit of $75,000.
6 Admit that you replaced items and made upgrades to the insured property that were not part of the water damage claim.
7 Admit the majority of the damages to the insured property were caused by the contractors you hired.
8 Admit water damage limits of $75,000 were paid under the Policy by 1-20-22.
These admissions and many more established that Januzi was aware of the policy limits when she purchased her homeowner's policy from Workman and that those limits include a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. They also establish that AMCI made payments totaling that $75,000 limit.
Januzi's causes of action against Workman for negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation are rooted in her accusation that Workman, an insurance agent, represented that the policy "covered her needs fully" and that "she had the correct coverage." Therefore, the evidence establishes that Januzi was aware of and consented to the policy limits prior to her insurance claim, and Januzi cannot offer any conflicting evidence.
The judgment of the court below was affirmed and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the Appellant, Lynette Januzi.
ZALMA OPINION
When I was a young lawyer California allowed litigants to deem admitted requests for admission that were not responded to in 30 days. I filed, on behalf of my clients, dozens of motions for summary judgment based on requests that were deemed admitted. The plaintiff whose case was lost because of admissions deemed admitted is not without a remedy, her lawyers may be responsible for the error.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk; and go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
