Russell v. State Farm Life Insurance Company

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified. (jm4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

KIMBERLY RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
VS.
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 06, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-02862

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s, Kimberly Russell (“Kimberly”), motion for

summary judgment (Dkt. No. 12). The defendant, State Farm Life Insurance Company (“State
Farm”), has filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 16). After reviewing the motion,
the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the Court determines that the plaintiff’s motion
should be DENIED.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 7, 2022, Davion D’Angelo Smith obtained a life insurance policy from State

Farm Life Insurance Company. Following his passing on May 26, 2022, his mother and named
beneficiary, Kimberly Russell, promptly filed a claim. In this suit, she alleges that State Farm
engaged in prolonged delays and excessive documentation requests, beginning with a basic request
on August 16, 2022. She also claims that despite her prompt compliance, State Farm repeatedly
asked for additional or revised documents without clear justification. Over the next year, the

1/4

company allegedly sent multiple “still processing” notices without providing substantive updates
or raising specific concerns about coverage.
On April 12, 2023, nearly a year after Smith’s passing, State Farm requested records from
the Texas Department of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Kimberly argues that she continued to cooperate, but the claim remained unpaid without a
legitimate basis for denial. On June 3, 2024, Kimberly’s counsel sent a demand letter highlighting
State Farm’s delays and requesting payment. The complaint alleges that State Farm has
intentionally delayed payment by demanding unnecessary document requests, has failed to explain
delays, and has been non-responsive.
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment against a

party who fails to make a sufficient showing of the existence of an element essential to the party’s
case and on which that party bears the burden at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The movant
bears the initial burden of “informing the Court of the basis of its motion” and identifying those
portions of the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; see also Martinez v. Schlumberger, Ltd., 338 F.3d 407, 411 (5th
Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
IV.

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
Here, State Farm has clearly identified factual disputes. The application submitted by

Kimberly Russell for Davion Smith’s life insurance policy explicitly asked whether he had been
2/4

convicted of a felony or incarcerated in the past three years. Despite Smith’s recent release from
incarceration, just 17 days before the application date, both Russell and Smith falsely answered
“No.” State Farm contends that had it known of this incarceration, it would not have issued the
policy. After Smith’s death, State Farm requested documents from Russell, including authorization
forms and criminal records from Harris County. Russell did not provide the records, instead
responding that she did not possess them and instructed State Farm to retrieve them on its own.
This conduct also raises a factual dispute over whether Russell failed to cooperate in the claims
process, which is relevant to determining whether the claim was properly denied.
Under Texas Insurance Code § 705.051, a material misrepresentation in an insurance
application can serve as a basis for denial of coverage if it affects the risk assumed by the insurer.
Texas courts have held that misrepresentation about an applicant’s criminal history and
incarceration status are material when they impact underwriting decisions. American National
Insurance Co. v. Arce, 672 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2023).
Given that both Russell and Smith signed the application affirming that the information
was accurate, State Farm was decieved. Courts have found that when an insurer relies on false
representations, it has grounds to void the policy. State Farm has provided an affidavit from its
representative stating that knowledge of Smith’s incarceration would have led to a denial of
coverage. This uncontested evidence supports State Farm’s argument that the misrepresentation
was material.
Given the disputed issues of fact regarding (1) whether Russell properly disclosed Smith’s
criminal history and (2) whether she failed to provide requested records. Summary judgment in
the plaintiff’s behalf is inappropriate. Furthermore, State Farm’s undisputed evidence

3/4

demonstrates that material misrepresentations was made by the plaintiff and that the policy is void.
Accordingly, Kimberly’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on March 6, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

4/4