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
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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...