Lack of Evidence Supports Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer
Post 4968
To Prove a Claim for Hailstorm Damage Admissible Evidence of Covered Loss is Needed from Insured
Kimberly and Michael Cutchall sued their homeowner’s insurance provider, Chubb Lloyd’s Insurance Company of Texas. Chubb disputed that there was water damage caused by a storm and claims that it already issued payment to the Cutchalls for all of the covered losses.
In Kimberly Cutchall and Michael Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyd’s Insurance Company Of Texas, Civil Action No. 23-3745, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, (December 31, 2024) the USDC ruled on the insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
The Insurance Claim
Kimberly and Michael Cutchall were insured by Chubb providing coverage for certain type of damages to their home. The policy insured against “risks of physical loss to the property,” subject to several exceptions.
In September 2021, the Cutchalls submitted an insurance claim to Chubb for water damage to their house. Chubb retained Nelson Forensics, LLC to inspect the Cutchalls’ house. The report from Nelson Forensics concluded that the moisture in the house was due to deterioration or deficiencies in the way the house was built, not storm damage.
Nelson Forensics prepared a supplemental. The report stated that the roof damage was “unrelated to wind or hail from any storm event.”
Chubb sent a letter to the Cutchalls explaining the results of its investigation, including that the damage to the Cutchalls’ house was “a result of several different causes of loss including a hail event prior to 2020, roof distress unrelated to wind or hail, as built defects, changes in temperatures between the interior and the attic space, prior plumbing leaks, and localized movement.” Chubb issued a $27,385.81 payment to the Cutchalls for covered damages. The Cutchalls never cashed the check.
THE LITIGATION
The Cutchalls sued Chubb for breach of contract and bad faith and designated Mr. Halliday and independent adjuster, Brandon Allen, as an expert. Chubb retained a meteorologist, David Finfrock, to assess whether a hailstorm could have damaged the Cutchalls’ home on August 16, 2021, as Mr. Allen contended. After analyzing the data relied upon by Mr. Allen, along with multiple other sources of weather data, Mr. Finfrock concluded that “there is no evidence of hail at [the Cutchalls’ address] ¶ 16 August 2021.”
Chubb filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the Cutchalls’ claims.
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Chubb filed its motion for summary judgment nearly a year after removing the case and the Cutchalls had not requested any depositions.
The Breach of Contract Claim
The Cutchalls’ breach of contract claim failed for two reasons: first, the Cutchalls have failed to point to evidence raising a dispute about whether their claim was covered; and second, the Cutchalls have failed to distinguish between covered and uncovered damages.
Failure to Identify Covered Loss
Under Texas law, the insured bears the burden of establishing that its claim is covered by the policy. Unconfirmed rumors of loss are insufficient to satisfy that burden.
Two of Chubb’s experts established that there were no hail or wind storms at the Cutchalls’ address during the policy period that could have caused the damage they claimed to their house.
No reasonable juror could believe the Cutchalls’ lack of evidence over Chubb’s. Because no genuine dispute existed over whether a covered loss occurred during the policy period, summary judgment on the Cutchalls’ breach of contract claim was granted.
The Extra-Contractual Claims
An insurer breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying a claim when the insurer’s liability has become reasonably clear. Chubb investigated the Cutchalls’ claim and concluded that the covered losses, minus the deductible, amounted to $27,385.81. Chubb issued a payment in that amount. The Cutchalls never cashed the check. The Cutchalls have failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they suffered additional losses covered by the policy.
All of the Cutchalls’ claims are dismissed with prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
It is axiomatic that not every damage to a dwelling is covered under a homeowners policy. Chubb’s experts established some damage but not the excessive damage claimed by the Cutchalls. Chubb’s motion for summary judgment contained convincing evidence that there was no covered loss causing damage to the Cutchalls home and there was insufficient, if any, evidence provided by the Cutchalls establishing a covered law. It is insufficient to prove a loss to rely on two adjusters whose lack of expertise and conclusions based on inadequate evidence, is insufficient.
(c) 2025 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
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 the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Posted on January 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ZIFL – Volume 30 Number 1
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
See the video at https://rumble.com/v73nifg-zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-january-2-2026.html and at https://youtu.be/vZC1e-_qwDg
Supreme Court of Louisiana Removes Judge
Judge Who Lied to Get Elected Cannot Serve
In In Re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, No. 2025-O-01127, Supreme Court of Louisiana (December 11, 2025) the Louisiana Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice Weimer dealt with the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) that Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts be removed from office for:
1. making false and misleading statements regarding her judicial campaigns;
2. making false and misleading statements to police investigating the reported burglary of her car; and
3. withholding information and providing false, incomplete, or misleading information during the investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as well as in the proceedings before the Commission....
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
