X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Ronald Pace submitted a claim to his insurer, Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Co., for property damage. In an April 26, 2000, letter, Travelers stated “we have determined that the damage to your property is not afforded coverage under the insurance policy. The letter concluded by stating, “If you have additional information that you feel may have an impact on this coverage decision or should you have any questions concerning this claim please forward same to me.” Pace hired an engineer who concluded that the damage was caused by plumbing leaks. Pace forwarded a copy of the engineer’s assessment to Travelers. In a Sept. 24, 2001, letter, Travelers stated that “in a continued effort to determine if there is coverage for the damage being claimed,” Travelers had hired its own consultant to review the claim. The letter went on to say that based on the review, “we regret our position remains the same,” and that they would not cover the damage. Pace sued on Jan. 8, 2003. In a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, Travelers argued Pace’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as his insurance claim was denied April 26, 2000. Pace countered that based on the Sept. 24, 2001, letter, Travelers had not denied the claim on in 2000 but had kept the case open. According to Pace, Travelers did not deny his insurance claim until September 2001, giving him until September 2003 to file his suit. The trial court granted Travelers’ motion. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court finds that the April 26, 2000, letter “unequivocally communicated a decision to deny coverage.” Though the paragraph invited Pace to submit additional information, it in no way conveyed that any additional information would be needed or even useful to a future decision. “In addition, it does not necessarily follow that: (1) because a decision has been made, it cannot be subsequently changed; or (2) because a decision can later be changed, it has not been made. Therefore, neither the fact that the April 26 letter left open the possibility that new information could potentially cause a different decision to be reached, nor the fact that the September 24 letter acknowledged that the new information provided by Pace had been reviewed to determine if a different decision was warranted, created uncertainty whether a decision had been made in conjunction with the April 26 letter.” OPINION:Edelman, J.; Yates, Edelman and Guzman, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?

 
 

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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.