Steve Quibodeaux And The Kids Safari, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiffs' objections # 67 are overruled. The defendant's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Court will enter final judgment separately. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/25/15. (mrp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STEVE QUIBODEAUX and
THE KIDS SAFARI, d/b/a
WEE CARE CHILDHOOD AND
PRESCHOOL,
Plaintiffs,
versus
NAUTILUS INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-739
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
consideration and recommended disposition of case-dispositive pretrial motions. On March 10,
2015, Judge Giblin issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court
grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and enter judgment in favor of the defendant,
Nautilus Insurance Company.
On March 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The plaintiffs contend that the magistrate judge erred by (1) finding that the appraisal process barred
their breach of contract claim for contents damage and (2) concluding that the plaintiffs’ extracontractual causes of action are also barred as a matter of law. The plaintiffs did not present
additional evidence with their objections creating a fact issue on the breach of contract claim. In
their objections, they fail to show how the magistrate judge specifically erred when he found that
no genuine issue of material fact existed on the contractual claim. Judge Giblin’s report specifically
analyzed the binding effect of the underlying appraisal award in this case and the resulting
preclusion of the breach of contract claim. As discussed in the report, the undisputed summary
judgment evidence shows that the appraisal award is binding, the defendant insurer timely issued
the appraisal award, and the plaintiffs accepted that award without dispute. Texas law clearly
provides that an insured is estopped from maintaining a breach of contract claim against its insurer
once the insurer tenders payment of a valid appraisal award. See Report and Recommendation, at
14 (citing Blum’s Furniture Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, 459 F. App’x 366, 368
(5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)). The plaintiffs’ objections do not contest this legal conclusion.
Rather, plaintiffs argue that the insurer’s delay in invoking appraisal renders the appraisal award
invalid. This contention does not alter the outcome because the magistrate judge applied proper
legal standards in considering the binding effect of the appraisal process and the resulting award.
The plaintiffs’ complaints about the defendant’s alleged delay in invoking appraisal is also
tempered by the fact that plaintiffs did not request to reinstate their claims in this case until almost
seven months after completion of the appraisal process. See Report and Recommendation, at 2-3.
Finally, despite plaintiffs’ unsupported arguments to the contrary, their extra-contractual
causes of action are precluded because the breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law. Texas
law clearly supports this outcome, as Judge Giblin thoroughly discusses this in his report. The
plaintiffs fail to cite case law or evidence in their objections convincing the Court that Judge Giblin
erred on this issue.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate
judge’s findings, the record, the specific objections, and the applicable law in this proceeding. After
review, the Court finds that Judge Giblin’s findings should be accepted.
2
The Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation (#66) is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs’
objections (#67) are OVERRULED. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment (#60) is
granted. The Court will issue final judgment separately.
Signed this date.
Mar 25, 2015
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?