LAZOS v. STATE FARM LLOYDS (2018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee State Farm Lloyds with regard to appellant Roberto Lazos's Texas Insurance Code and common law bad faith claims. The trial court concluded State Farm's payment of an appraisal award precluded Lazos's claims as a matter of law pursuant to this court's decision in Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied). On appeal, Lazos raises a single issue, arguing this court must reconsider its Garcia decision in light of the Texas Supreme Court's decision in USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 672 (Tex. Apr. 7, 2017). We recently addressed this same issue in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 568 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. filed) (mem. op.). Based on our analysis and holding in Ortiz, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment in this case.¹

Background

In 2014, Lazos suffered property damage as a result of a wind and hailstorm. Lazos's property was covered by an insurance policy issued by State Farm. Lazos submitted a claim, but State Farm found the alleged property damage failed to exceed the policy's deductible. Accordingly, State Farm completed its claim adjustment, making no payment. Thereafter, Lazos filed suit against State Farm, seeking damages for wrongful denial and underpayment of his claim. After suit was filed, State Farm invoked the appraisal clause in Lazos's insurance policy. Through the appraisal process, it was determined that Lazos suffered property damage in the amount of $2,383.64—an amount higher than the damage estimate originally asserted by State Farm. As a result of the appraisal, State Farm paid Lazos $1,043.08, the amount of damage determined by the appraisal less the deductible and recoverable depreciation.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to a take-nothing summary judgment on Lazos's breach of contract and extra-contractual claims based on this court's decision in Garcia. The trial court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of State Farm. Lazos then perfected this appeal.

Analysis

As noted above, in his sole appellate issue Lazos contends we must reconsider our Garcia decision in light of the supreme court's decision in Menchaca. However, we recently decided this issue in Ortiz contrary to Lazos's position. See 568 S.W.3d 156, 157. In Ortiz, we recognized that under our decision in Garcia, an insurer's payment of an appraisal award entitles the insurer to summary judgment on an insured's contractual and extra-contractual claims. Id. 568 S.W.3d 156, 159 (citing Garcia, 514 S.W.3d at 264–65, 276–79). We then analyzed the supreme court's decision in Menchaca to determine whether it required us to revisit our holding in Garcia. After analyzing Menchaca, we held: (1) it does not involve the payment of an appraisal award, and (2) nothing in the “five distinct but interrelated rules that govern the relationship between contractual and extra-contractual claims in the insurance context” required us to revisit Garcia or reverse the summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Id. 568 S.W.3d 156, 159–160 (quoting Menchaca, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 672, ––––, 2017 WL 1311752, at *4). Thus, we held there was nothing in Menchaca requiring that we revisit our decision in Garcia. See id. We hold our decision in Ortiz—holding that Menchaca does not change our prior holding in Garcia—controls this appeal and compels us to overrule Lazos's appellate issue. See id.

Conclusion

Accordingly, because State Farm paid the appraisal award in this case, and Lazos has failed to assert any ground for setting aside the appraisal award or present evidence of an act so extreme that it caused him injury independent of his claim under the policy, we hold summary judgment was properly granted on Lazos's contractual and extra-contractual claims. See Garcia, 514 S.W.3d at 265, 278–79.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the appellant's brief in Ortiz, appellate counsel for Ortiz admits the legal arguments in Ortiz, this appeal, and Alvarez v. State Farm Lloyds, 598 S.W.3d 273 (2018) “are identical.” The appellants in these three appeals are represented by the same appellate counsel.

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice