Dalton v. State Farm Lloyds et al
Filing
74
OPINION AND ORDER denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rvazquez)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SARA DALTON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
STATE FARM LLOYD’S, INC. AND
STEWART BROWN,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION H-12-3004
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause arising
out of an insurance dispute over recovery for alleged hail storm
damage to Plaintiff Sara Dalton’s house and property, especially
the roof, on January 9, 2012 and over State Farm Lloyd’s handling
of the claim, timely removed from state court on diversity grounds,
is
Defendant
State
Farm
Lloyds’
motion
for
summary
judgment
(instrument #31).
After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court
finds
that
both
sides
have
been
somewhat
unclear
about
the
evidence. While Plaintiff complains that she was not provided with
a reasonable and detailed explanation of the results of the
separate inspections by State Farm adjusters Stewart Brown and
Donald Guillory, but only two cursory denial letters, the evidence
shows that Plaintiff was not present for either of the inspections,
while her adult son, Jack Debolt, was.
-1-
Debolt testified that he
had a lengthy conversation with Brown after the inspection and that
Brown provided him with a printout of his report.
27.
#42-5, pp. 26-
State Farm represents that “[o]n March 19, 2012 Stewart Brown
inspected the roof on behalf of State Farm, along with Dalton’s
adult son and a representative of Plaintiff’s roofer of choice,”
Steve Johnson from Remedy Roofing, and that “[o]n June 12, 2012
Donald Guillory of State Farm and Plaintiff’s second roofer of
choice,
Chris
inspection.”
Rydiak
of
#32 at p. 3.
“Allstate
Roofing,
attended
the
A review of all the evidence reveals
the Jack Debolt never went up on the roof because of its steepness,
and that neither of Plaintiff’s “roofers” of choice” went up on the
roof with the State Farm inspectors either. Plaintiff’s conclusory
allegations
of
bad
faith,1
outcome-oriented
and
unreasonable
inspections, misrepresentations, etc. are not competent summary
judgment evidence.
Nevertheless, the affidavit and report of Plaintiff’s expert
Shannon Kimmel, an experienced adjuster who in the past had worked
for State Farm as well as other insurers, plus his attached
photographs, do raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.
Accordingly, the Court
ORDERS that State Farm’s motion for summary judgment (#21) is
1
From the joint pretrial order it appears that Plaintiff has
dropped her statutory and common law bad faith claims, and will try
only her breach of contract claim to the jury, with the Court to
decide her claim for interest under the Prompt Payment Act. #46 at
p. 6.
-2-
DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this
4th
day of
March , 2014.
___________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?