Case Name: Hortencia MATA; Rogelio Mata, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS; State Farm Lloyds Inc., DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-27
Citations: 206 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 06-40604
Parties: Hortencia MATA; Rogelio Mata, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS; State Farm Lloyds Inc., DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Hortencia MATA; Rogelio Mata, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS; State Farm Lloyds Inc., DefendantsAppellees.
No. 06-40604
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 27, 2006.
Savannah Lina Robinson, Danbury, TX, James Maverick McNeel, Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, David R. Stephens, Lindow & Treat, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
James Maverick McNeel, David R. Stephens, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Matas appeal the district court's order of dismissal as to Defendant State Farm Lloyds Inc. and the district court's entry of summary judgment for Defendant State Farm Lloyds. This case is one of several related cases, all of which the district court dismissed on the same basis: that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the insurance company's attorney-in-fact and that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiffs served the insurance company with process. As to the order of dismissal of the attorney-in-fact, we affirm for the reasons stated in our disposition of Martinez v. State Farm Lloyds, 204 Fed.Appx. 435. As to the entry of summary judgment, we likewise affirm because the Matas' original petition, filed in state court on January 31, 2003, estops them from denying that their claims had already accrued — and therefore the limitation period began to run — at the time they filed their lawsuit. The Matas did not serve State Farm Lloyds until August 2005, after the statute of limitations had run. See id.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not he published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.