Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This case arises from an insurance-coverage dispute between a policyholder who suffered mold damage to her apartment and an insurer who denied coverage under a renter’s insurance policy. The policyholder sued the insurer asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of both the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. HOLDING:The court reverses the judgment of the trial court to the extent it dismissed the policyholder’s breach-of-contract claim, bad-faith claims, and additional DTPA claims, and the court severs and remands these claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court affirms the trial court’s judgment dismissing the misrepresentation-based claims. The court finds the insurer waived the requirement for the personal property inventory when it told the policyholder that mold was specifically excluded by her policy and that the insurer would pay only for items that got wet. The condition precedent having been waived, the policyholder is not barred from filing a suit for breach of the insurance contract. An intent to exclude coverage must be expressed in clear and unambiguous policy language. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Reed, 873 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. 1993). Notably, the HOB-T policy does not contain an exclusion for mold. Applying the widely accepted definitions of the relevant terms, the court concludes that, because mold can be naturally produced by a water leak, the policy language can be given a definite legal meaning and it is not ambiguous. The court agrees with the policyholder that the policy’s plain language, when read in context, giving effect to all contractual provisions, is unambiguous and requires payment for mold damage caused by a leaking air conditioning unit. If a named peril � the accidental discharge, leakage, or overflow of water from within an air conditioning system � caused the mold in question, the damage is covered under the HOB-T policy because this type of damage was not specifically excluded from coverage in the policy. With regard to the extra-contractual claims, the policyholder failed to present evidence to support her misrepresentation-based claims and so the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to those claims. Fact issues preclude summary judgment as to the policyholder’s bad-faith claims. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to the additional DTPA claims because none of the meritorious grounds in the insurer’s motion attacked these claims. OPINION:Frost, J.; Hudson, Fowler and Frost, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.