Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pek v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

May 23, 2019

ING PEK and ALICE PEK Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Came on for consideration the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 22, 2019, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge was entered (the “Report”) (see Dkt. #57) recommending Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company's (“Allstate” or “Defendant”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Bad Faith Claims Based on the Existence of a Bona Fide Dispute (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”) (Dkt. #35) be Denied. See Dkt. #57 at 9.

         Allstate filed an Objection to the Report (the “Objections”). See Dkts. #58, 59.[1] The Court has made a de novo review of the Objections and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the Objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

         I.BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of an insurance dispute. Plaintiffs Ing Pek and Alice Pek (together, “Plaintiffs”) own a home located at 5960 Temple Drive, Plano, Texas 75093 (the “Property”), which was insured by Allstate. See Dkt. #1-2 at 3.[2] The Property suffered damage following two storms, which occurred on or about March 26, 2016, and April 21, 2017. See Dkt. 1-2 at 3. The parties dispute how much money Plaintiffs should receive to cover the damage to the Property under their insurance policies with Allstate as a result of the storms.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Defendants' individual objections were unnumbered and appeared to readdress a few objections multiple times throughout the Objections. See Dkt. #58. As such, Defendant's objections are summarized below.

         Evidentiary Objections

         Defendant objects that “[t]aken cumulatively, the Magistrate[ Judge]'s conclusions are built upon [] improper findings to which Allstate objects.” See Dkt. #58 at 2. To support this assertion, Defendant points to the Magistrate Judge's citation to Plaintiff's Original Petition, which Defendant asserts is, in fact, Defendant's Notice of Removal and Jury Demand. Defendant miscites the record.

         In reviewing the evidence, the Court finds there is extensive evidence to support a finding that the Property “suffered damage to the exterior and roof during two storms, which occurred on or about March 23, 2016, and April 21, 2017, ” including Defendant's own records. See Dkts. #36-2-36-6. Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED.

         Rule 56(c)

         Defendant objects to the Report because “[a]ll inferences of any kind are viewed favorably to Plaintiffs.” See Dkt. #58 at 3. Further, Defendant “objects to the Report because it improperly relies on ‘mere allegations contained in the pleadings' as evidence of bad faith.” See Id. No specific “mere allegations” are cited.

         Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence and all justifiable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 549 (1999). The appropriate inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).

         Upon review, the Magistrate Judge's Report recommended denial of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because a fact issue appropriate for the finder of fact remained regarding all causes of action addressed in the Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. #57. In so doing, the Magistrate Judge relied on the “omissions or inconsistencies” of Allstate's reports. See Dkt. #57 at 8 (citing Dkt. #42-4 at 2; Dkt. #42-6 at 1; Dkt. #42-10 at 1. The Court does not find the Report took “[a]ll inferences” favorably to Plaintiffs, but considered the evidence presented by both parties. Upon ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.