Roxanna McCormick v. State Farm Lloyds

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROXANNA MCCORMICK, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00315-O-BP § STATE FARM LLOYDS, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. The Chief United States District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. The undersigned Chief District Judge ACCEPTS in PART the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims under Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code survive the summary judgment motion because they depend upon the amount Defendant must pay, if any. See Casey v. State Farm Lloyds, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-346, 2022 WL 3702024, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2022) (Lindsay, J.) (denying motion for summary judgment on claims under Tex. Ins. Code Ann. §§ 542.058 and 542.060 where genuine issue of material fact existed regarding amount insurer was obligated to pay on insured’s claim); Patton v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 3:21- cv-1409, 2022 WL 2992878, at *18 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2022) (Fish, J.) (denying insurer’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that insurer violated §§ 542.058 and 542.060 of the Texas Insurance Code because “[i]t is possible that the jury will find that [the insurer] breached the insurance contract by failing to pay more than what it has already paid”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff's DTPA claims are DISMISSED. SO ORDERED this 18th day of May 2026. (\ {yf —

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE