No Response to Motion Guarantees Loss
Post 5055
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5VvTN9F, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtwxjXjK and at https://lnkd.in/gKpVWhWW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Great Little Minds Academy, LLC v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-1875, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division (April 17, 2025) Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Atlantic”) moved for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Atlantic’s summary judgment evidence establishes that GLMA purchased a commercial lines insurance policy from Atlantic (“the policy”) that contained the following coverage exclusion (“the freeze exclusion”):
“2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following: …
"g. Water, other liquids, powder or molten material that leaks or flows from plumbing, heating, air conditioning or other equipment (except fire protective systems) caused by or resulting from freezing, unless:
"(1) You do your best to maintain heat in the building or structure; or
"(2) You drain the equipment and shut off the supply if the heat is not maintained.”
When Winter Storm Uri struck Houston in February of 2021, the property insured by the policy suffered water damage after a pipe froze and burst. At the time of the storm, the insured property was vacant and had been vacant since its acquisition by GLMA in November of 2020. The insured property used two natural gas furnaces for central heating, but GLMA had not activated natural gas service for the insured property when Uri hit. Moreover, no one had shut off the water supply or drained the pipes at the insured property to prepare for the storm.
GLMA made a claim on the policy; and Atlantic denied the claim, citing the freeze exclusion. GLMA then sued.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The movant’s initial summary judgment burden depends on whether the movant will bear the burden of proof at trial. The movant may meet its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting the non-movant’s case. If the movant meets its initial burden, the non-movant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Atlantic’s evidence shows that the policy’s freeze exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for GLMA’s claim. On the record before the court, GLMA’s claim for breach of the insurance contract failed because the evidence conclusively showed that Atlantic did not breach the insurance contract.
In Texas insurance policies are construed in accordance with the same rules as contracts generally. If the insurer relies on a coverage exclusion to deny coverage, then it bears the burden of proving the applicability of the exclusion. Once the insurer proves that an exclusion applies, the burden shifts back to the insured to show that the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion. Coverage exclusions are construed narrowly, and any ambiguities are resolved in the insured’s favor.
Atlantic’s evidence showed that the water damage to GLMA’s insured property was caused by a frozen pipe that burst, triggering the freeze exclusion and shifting the burden to GLMA to prove that at least one of the two listed exceptions to the freeze exclusion applies. GLMA did not respond to Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment, so it consequently failed to carry its burden to create a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether one of the exceptions applies.
EXTRACONTRACTUAL CAUSES OF ACTION
GLMA’s numerous extracontractual causes of action also failed because the evidence showed that Atlantic did nothing more than promptly deny a claim that was not covered under the policy. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies are contracts and motions for summary judgment are designed to save the courts and the litigants the time necessary to resolve their dispute by trial. Atlantic’s motion established that the loss resulted from frozen pipes that burst because the insured failed to heat the structure or drain the pipes. since there was no breach of contract there could be no claims for bad faith or extracontractual damages. GLMA failed to respond because there were no facts in its favor and the attempt to scare Atlantic into a settlement did not work.
(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 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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
