United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11070 

____________

Mario Rodriguez, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-168

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

After a tornado struck Mario Rodriguez’s home, he notified his 

insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana (“Safeco”). In response, 

Safeco sent an adjuster, who inspected the home and determined the cash 

value of the damage. Believing that amount insufficient, however, Rodriguez 

sent Safeco a notice explaining that he was entitled to more money under his 

insurance policy. Although Safeco received the letter, it never replied. So

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11070 Document: 93-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2024
No. 22-11070

2

Rodriguez pursued litigation, citing the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims 

Act (“TPPCA”), a statute that aims to prevent insurers from delaying 

payment of claims. See Tex. Ins. Code § 542. If an insurer violates the 

TPPCA, the statute mandates that insurers pay damages, including 

statutory interest on the claim along with reasonable and necessary 

attorney’s fees. Id. § 542.060.

More than a year after Rodriguez filed his lawsuit, Safeco invoked a 

provision in the policy that permits an appraisal by disinterested third parties. 

The appraisal panel determined the replacement cost value of the damage to 

Rodriguez’s home, and Safeco paid the amount in full minus the deductible, 

policy limits, and prior payment. Safeco also paid Rodriguez an additional 

sum, claiming that the supplementary amount represented “any conceivable 

interest Plaintiff could allege to be owed under the [TPPCA] on the abovereferenced appraisal award payment.” 

Though Safeco believed that its payments resolved the lawsuit, 

Rodriguez disagreed. As pertinent here, Rodriguez claimed that he was 

entitled to attorney’s fees under the TPPCA. The parties’ dispute was 

rooted in the Texas legislature’s recent amendment to the statute, which 

changed the method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees and 

interest that a court may award for weather-related insurance disputes. See

§§ 542A.001–.007. Relevant to Rodriguez’s case, the new method involves a 

two-step calculation. Id. § 542A.007(a)(3). Step one requires dividing the 

amount to be awarded in the judgment by the amount the insured demanded 

before filing suit. See id. § 542A.007(a)(3)(A). The second step calls for 

multiplying the figure from step one by “the total amount of reasonable and 

necessary attorney’s fees supported at trial . . . .” Id. § 542A.007(a)(3)(B).

Because Safeco paid all amounts owed under the policy plus any 

possible statutory interest, it said the amount to be awarded in the judgment 

Case: 22-11070 Document: 93-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2024
No. 22-11070

3

was zero. And because zero divided or multiplied by any other number is 

zero, Safeco reasoned that Rodriguez was not entitled to attorney’s fees. 

Safeco accordingly moved for summary judgment, and the district court 

granted the motion, dismissing all of Rodriguez’s claims. Rodriguez timely 

appealed that ruling.

In addressing Rodriguez’s challenge on appeal, we recognized the 

difficulty in applying the TPPCA attorney’s fee provision in dispute. 

Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind., 73 F.4th 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2023), certified 

question accepted (July 21, 2023), certified question answered, No. 23-0534, 

2024 WL 388142 (Tex. Feb. 2, 2024). The problem was that state and federal 

courts reviewing the same statute had reached conflicting conclusions. Id.

at 355. Some courts held that the modified attorney’s fee provision did not 

apply in situations like Rodriguez’s, while others took a different view. Id.

Considering this split in state authority, we certified the following question 

to the Texas Supreme Court:

In an action under Chapter 542A of the Texas Prompt Payment 

of Claims Act, does an insurer’s payment of the full appraisal 

award plus any possible statutory interest preclude recovery of 

attorney’s fees?

Id. at 356. 

The Court recently answered that question in the affirmative. 

Rodriguez, 2024 WL 388142, at *5. It held that “[S]ection 542A.007 of the 

Insurance Code prohibits an award of attorney’s fees when an insurer has 

fully discharged its obligations under the policy by voluntarily paying the 

appraised amount, plus any statutory interest, in compliance with the 

policy’s appraisal provisions.” Id. at *2. In this case, Safeco discharged its 

policy obligations and paid the necessary statutory interest. The Texas 

Supreme Court’s holding thus requires that we AFFIRM the district 

Case: 22-11070 Document: 93-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2024
No. 22-11070

4

court’s judgment in all respects.

1 All pending motions are DENIED as 

moot. 

_____________________

1 In our prior panel opinion, we affirmed the district court’s ruling concerning 

Rodriguez’s challenge arising under § 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. Rodriguez, 73 F.4th 

at 353 n.1. The only remaining issue on appeal was the one that the Texas Supreme Court 

squarely addressed. 

Case: 22-11070 Document: 93-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/16/2024