Insurance Law Attorney

Residents of the Dallas Fort Worth area and everywhere need to make sure they hire an experienced Insurance Law Attorney when they are dealing with a dispute involving an insurance company.
The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case styled, Clark and Nancy Sadler v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies. Here is some of the relevant information.
Clark and Nancy Sadler appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies (“Farm Bureau”) on the Sadlers’ Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) claim.
The Sadlers alleged that, in April 2009, Nancy attempted to move her vehicle into her home’s garage. She lost control of the vehicle after starting it and crashed through the garage, damaging the vehicle and the home. Before this incident, the Sadlers purchased an insurance policy from Farm Bureau. The Sadlers claimed that a Farm Bureau agent assured them the policy would cover “anything that happened on their property or to their house” and that they bought the policy based on the agent’s representations of the policy’s coverage. The Sadlers alleged Farm Bureau refused to pay for the damage to the house.
In their sole issue on appeal, the Sadlers assert that the trial court erred in granting Farm Bureau’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment for two reasons. First, the Sadlers claim they adequately responded to the motion by notifying the trial court they were relying on their response to Farm Bureau’s traditional motion for summary judgment and the affidavits attached to the response. And second, the Sadlers claim the allegations contained in Farm Bureau’s no-evidence motion are sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
To prevail on their DTPA claim, the Sadlers were required to show: (1) they are consumers; (2) Farm Bureau used or employed at least one of the laundry list items of false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that the Sadlers relied on to their detriment, or Farm Bureau engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action; and (3) these acts constituted a producing cause of the Sadlers’ damages.
In its no-evidence motion, Farm Bureau adequately set forth the elements as to which it claims there is no evidence. The motion states:
Plaintiffs have no adequate proof that: (1) Defendant Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies engaged in false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices; … . (3) Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the acts or practices to their detriment; (4) the acts or practices were a producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages; or (5) Plaintiffs suffered any damages.
This court went to great lengths setting out what should have been done by the Sadlers and was not done. In the end the summary judgement for Texas Farm was upheld.
It is not clear whether or not the Sadlers had an attorney helping them or they were pro se in the trial court. What is clear is that the work necessary to be performed was not performed to prevent this case from being thrown out by summary judgement.