Donald Hope and Erica Hope v. State Farm Lloyds

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: May 28, 2024
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00510
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED May 28, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY DONALD HOPE and ERICA HOPE, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CIVIL NO. SA: 5:21-CV-00510-OLG § STATE FARM LLOYDS, § § Defendant. § ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed April 2, 2024, concerning Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs’ Extra-Contractual Claims [#27] and Plaintiffs’ Response [#31]. See R&R, Dkt. No. 33. A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiffs and Defendant, through counsel, were electronically served with a copy of the R&R on April 2, 2024, and Defendant timely filed its objection on April 16, 2024 (see Dkt. No. 49). As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed an objection. When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ DTPA claim under Section 17.50(a)(4). Dkt. No. 49; see Dkt. No. 33, p. 13, 4 3; p. 14, | 2; p. 15 § 1. Defendant argues that Section 17.50(a)(4) applies only to Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code and because the Magistrate Judge has recommended granting summary judgment on all Chapter 541 claims, there is no basis for a Section 17.50(a)(4) claim. Dkt. No. 49 at 1. The Court, having conducted an independent review of the record and the applicable law, SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection and REJECTS that portion of the recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Section 17.50(a)(4) of the DTPA provides that “[a] consumer may maintain an action where any of the following constitute a producing cause of economic damages or damages for mental anguish:...(4) the use or employment by any person of an act or practice in violation of Chapter 541, Insurance Code.” More succinctly, Plaintiff cannot maintain a Section 17.50(a)(4) claim under the DTPA without an underlying violation of Chapter 541 of the Insurance Code. Univ. Baptist Church of Fort Worth v. Lexington Ins. Co., 346 F. Supp. 3d 880, 889-90 (N.D. Tex. 2018), aff'd, 787 F. App’x 194 (Sth Cir. 2019). Here, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. See R&R, Dkt. No. 33 at 11. Thus, summary judgment must also be granted on Plaintiffs’ DPTA claim under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.50(a)(4).

In all other respects, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation (Dkt. No. 33).' For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs’ Extra-Contractual Claims (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiffs’ promptness-based claims under Texas Insurance Code §§ 542.003(b)(2)-(3), 542.055-.056, 542.058(a), and 542.060(a)(3), but GRANTED as to all other claims. It is so ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2024.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

'The court notes that the Magistrate Judge mistakenly failed to enumerate Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(3) in its analysis of extracontractual claims predicated on bad faith (see R&R, Dkt. No. 33 at 8-11), but the analysis is applicable and results in the dismissal of such claim alongside Plaintiffs’ other related Sec. 541 claims predicated on bad faith. See Pl.’s Original Petition, Dkt. No. 1-2,931.