When Common Law Bad Faith Claim Fails so Does Statutory Bad Faith Claims
Post 5023
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6qs1e4-unsubstantiated-legal-conclusion-defeats-bad-faith-claim.html and at https://youtu.be/xM-BRiFcVx0
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gWMnwHiC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzDqEDSa and at https://lnkd.in/gTNY9zRR, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5,000 posts.
In Cowboy Christian Missions, Plaintiff v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, SI, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00057-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas (March 7, 2025) a bad faith claim was dismissed before trial.
Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company moved the court for Partial Summary Judgment to eliminate charges of the tort of Bad Faith.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s building complex sustained damage as a result of an EF3 tornado (the “Loss Event”). At the time of the Loss Event, the Property was covered under an insurance policy issued by Defendant Church Mutual (the “Policy”). The Policy provided coverage for damages caused by the Loss Event, subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy.
Plaintiff submitted a claim for coverage under the Policy for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the Loss Event. Within two days of the Loss Event, Defendant conducted its initial inspection of the Property, which included (1) Defendant’s adjuster, Ben Hodges; (2) a third-party engineer, Travis Ebisch, of Nelson Forensics, LLC; and (3) a “building consultant,” Mani Siaosi, of Cavalry Construction (“Cavalry”). Based on an estimate produced by these individuals, Defendant issued payments for coverage of the claim in the amounts of $100,000.00 and $ 291,535.53.
Defendant refused to issue additional payments for expenses and/or losses that Plaintiff believes were covered under the Policy. Among those are “relocation” costs that Plaintiff allegedly incurred while repairs were being conducted on the Property and other “non-salvageable items” damaged during the Loss Event.
Nearly one year after the Loss Event, Plaintiff sent Defendant a demand letter requesting $1,626,859.31, which Church Mutual refused.
Plaintiff sued seeking breach of contract damages and “extra-contractual” claims for alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), fraudulent misrepresentations, and breach of the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Trial is currently scheduled on the Court’s docket beginning March 24, 2025.
ANALYSIS
Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant acted in bad faith during its processing of Plaintiff’s insurance claim. Defendant argued that the evidence reflected only a bona fide coverage dispute, which necessarily bars the extra-contractual claims that involve elements of bad faith, malice, or similar ill-intent. The Court agreed.
Common-Law Claim: Breach of Duty of Good Faith & Fair Dealing
Insurance companies have a duty to deal fairly and in good faith with an insured in the processing of claims. This means that as long as the insurer has a reasonable basis to deny or delay payment of a claim, even if that basis is eventually determined by the fact finder to be erroneous, the insurer is not liable for the tort of bad faith.
Plaintiff cited to no legal authority or industry standard that suggests who is responsible for investigating new evidence, or why, once counsel and third-party experts are involved, they cannot fulfill this duty. Defendant argued that it did not need to adjust its payment for extra expenses because Plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing that its relocation expenses were necessary. Under Texas law, it is the policyholder’s burden to demonstrate that a claim is covered under the policy.
Plaintiff did not attempt to list its relocation expenses so the Court could not determine which expenses were “necessary.” Instead, Plaintiff refers generally to “American Express charges” and “an invoice from M&M Construction” that Plaintiff submitted to Defendant, which Plaintiff’s representative, Kort Weldon, was asked about in his deposition. Mr. Weldon testified that these were expenses incurred when Cowboy Christian had to relocate to another building to resume operations. Absent an itemized list and specific support for each item, Plaintiff’s contention that it incurred “extra expenses” is an unsubstantiated legal conclusion.
To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Cavalry conducted an inventory of all non-salvageable items and Defendant never produced that inventory, then Defendant should produce that inventory if it was requested.
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for common-law breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Statutory Claims: Violations of the Texas Insurance Code & Texas DTPA
Texas courts have recognized the close relationship between common-law bad-faith claims and the statutory bad-faith claims found in the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA. Because the statutory and common law standards are now the same, a finding that there is no common law violation as a matter of law also eliminates the statutory claims alleged by plaintiffs in this case.
Defendant’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted and Plaintiff’s statutory claims under the Texas Insurance Code and the DTPA and Plaintiff’s common-law claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed with prejudice.
The remaining claims for trial are breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentations.
ZALMA OPINION
Refusing to pay a claim presented by the insured is not evidence of the tort of bad faith. Although Cowboy Christian was upset and didn’t receive the money it wanted, that is not evidence of bad faith, it is just a dispute over numbers. The trial will go forward and Cowboy Christian will present evidence to the court of the amount it believes is covered by the policy to indemnify it for its losses and will not receive a bonus of exemplary or punitive damages.
(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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)
After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...
Violate Terms of Probation and Go to Jail
Post 4848
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement. The trial court consolidated the convictions, imposed an 11-to-23-month sentence,
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges. At the 26 March 2024 hearing, counsel admitted Allen’s nonpayment but did not admit commission of the new offenses; the court did not inquire into the failure-to-report allegation.
Defendant did not deny this probation violation. Instead, when the trial court asked whether Defendant wanted to admit any of the alleged ...
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4848
See the full video at and at at https://lnkd.in/gGJpiN_R and at https://lnkd.in/gb56mYsP
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement.
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges.
The court found all alleged violations, extended probation by 24 months, imposed five months’ confinement as special probation, required reporting after release, and ordered electronic house arrest.
LAW
A probation violation need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; competent evidence must reasonably satisfy the trial judge that the defendant willfully violated a valid probation condition.
An in-court admission of a willful violation eliminates the need for ...