United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
filed an Objection to the Report (the
“Objections”). See Dkts. #58,
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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 ...