Scott Keffer | Zelle
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the insured’s hail damage claim under a 2022 policy should have been brought under the prior policy in effect at the time of the alleged loss. Gann et al. v. Depositors Ins. Co., No. 3:24-CV-2168-S, 2025 WL 2483339 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2025).
Although the insured reported a date of loss on August 9, 2022 (which would fall within the 2022 policy period), the insurer’s experts determined that the claimed damage was sustained on March 16, 2023 and/or April 21, 2023 (which would fall outside the 2022 policy period). On the other hand, the insured’s experts concluded that the damage was caused by an earlier storm event on June 5, 2018, and insured’s counsel utilized this date in subsequent claim correspondence. Id. at *2. Accordingly, the insurer denied coverage under the 2022 policy for damage caused by the 2018 storm, explaining that such damage occurred outside the effective period (from January 29, 2022 to January 29, 2023) of the 2022 policy. Id.
With respect to the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the insured’s breach of contract claim was not viable because (1) any damage from the 2018 storm was not covered by the 2022 policy, (2) any alleged breach of the 2018 policy would also fail because such allegations were not included in the insured’s live pleading and because the insured did not make a claim under the 2018 policy, and (3) even if the insured were to make a claim under the 2018 policy, it would also fail as prompt notice was not provided and the insurer would now be prejudiced by the delay. Id. at *3-*4. The court reasoned that upon the insurer’s claim denial the burden was on the insured to make a new claim under the effective policy. Id. at *5. Likewise, the court found that the insured’s extracontractual claims were not viable because the insured did not establish any independent injury separate from the denial of policy benefits and that the insurer was not liable under Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code because it was not liable for breach of any insurance policy. Id. at *8.
As such, the court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. Id.
The Lowdown: An insured must make a claim under the policy that provides coverage for losses during that effective period or risk subsequent dismissal if a new claim under the effective policy is not made upon a denial of coverage due to the timing of the alleged loss.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.