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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
