Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024).

    Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage.

    Mr. Rodriquez filed suit alleging breach of contract and breach of the insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing,. State Farm moved for summary judgment. 

    The court first noted that the Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Cause by Hail was not included in the policy. The endorsement stated, "this endorsement is void unless signed by a named insured," and there was no indication that Mr. Rodriquez accepted the endorsement as part of the policy. It appeared that the endorsement was part of a different policy issued to a different insured. Although the cosmetic loss exclusion would likely bar coverage, it was not part of the policy in this case. Therefore, State Farm's motion on the breach of contract claim was denied.

    Turning to the extra-contractual claim, to the extent that some of the claimed loss may have been caused by faulty workmanship or deterioration, a bona fide coverage dispute existed. However, State Farm denied the most costly part of the clam based on a cosmetic loss exclusion that, on its face, was not part of the policy. Based on the current record, the cosmetic loss explanation for denial does not appear to be valid. Therefore, summary judgment on the extra-contractual claim was also denied.