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
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
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 ...
