United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
C. LAMBERTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is a dispute over insurance policy coverage and the
conduct of the defendant insurer, Chubb Lloyd's Insurance
Company of Texas (Chubb Lloyd's), in its payments
totaling $145, 290.72 to the plaintiff-insureds, Kirk and
Tamre McClelland for a covered loss. The McClellands asserted
that they were entitled to greater amounts and brought
various causes of action against Chubb Lloyd's and claims
adjuster Robert Pritchard, including breach of contract,
violations of Sections 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance
Code, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(DTP A), unfair insurance practices, and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing. This Court granted summary
judgment and dismissed the case by order dated January 30,
2017. ECF No. 45.
now move to alter that judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the
motion, ECF No. 46, the defendant's response, ECF No. 47,
and plaintiffs' reply, ECF No. 48, the Court finds that
the motion should be denied.
facts of this case are set out in more detail in the
Court's previous Memorandum Opinion dated January 30,
2017. ECF No. 44. To summarize, the McClelland's garage
apartment at 502 Arcadia Place, San Antonio Texas was
destroyed in a fire on September 8, 2014. The McClellands
were policyholders of a Chubb Lloyd's "Texas
Standard Homeowners Policy" covering that unit, as well
as a "Texas Platinum Homeowner's Endorsement."
Mot. Ex. 1 [ECF No. 37-1] pp. App. 1, 11, 32. Their extended
policy limits allowed for "reconstruction cost even if
this amount exceeds the limit of liability for your dwelling
or other structures as shown on the declarations page."
Mot Ex. 1 App. 46. The Platinum Endorsement defined
means the amount required at the time of loss to repair,
replace, or rebuild, whichever is less, at the same location,
your dwelling or other structure, using like design, and the
quality of materials and workmanship which existed at the
time of the loss.
does not include any amount required for:
a. the excavation, replacement or stabilization of land under
or around your dwelling or any other structure;
b. conforming to any law or ordinance that regulates the
repair, replacement, rebuilding or demolition of your
dwelling or any other structure; or
c. removing the debris of a covered loss or the property that
caused a covered loss.
Mot. Ex. 1 App. 47.
McClellands' contractor, Truax Construction, submitted an
estimate for the cost of repair at $211, 450.00, excluding
the cost of the slab, demolition, and haul-off. Chubb
Lloyd's rejected that estimate in favor of their own
estimate, $213, 527.37, which includedthe cost of
slab, removal, and the contents of the apartment. The cost of
the rebuild itself was $106, 156.84. Some payments were made
to third-party contractors, but the McClelland directly
received $145, 290.72 towards the rebuild of the structure.
McClellands spent $349, 402.55 to rebuild the structure,
increasing the size of the dwelling from 1, 204 square feet
to 1, 584 square feet. The McClellands filed suit, claiming
the failure to pay the full cost of reconstruction was a
breach of the contractual terms of the policy. Further, the
McClellands alleged that Chubb Lloyd's failure to pay ...