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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
