Opinion ID: 30554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wall Trade-In Claim

Text: 29 We next consider whether the district court erred in granting Mid-Continent's motion for summary judgment and denying Performance's motion for partial summary judgment on the Wall trade-in claim. 30 Performance contends that its loss is a covered loss as a matter of law and that the indirect loss exclusion does not bar coverage for the trade-in loss. Mid-Continent first argues that Performance did not show the trade-in loss was an employee dishonesty loss because the transaction was just a bad business deal, not a loss due to Wall's dishonesty. Mid-Continent also argues that Performance has not shown a loss of covered property because it has not set forth evidence of the value of the trade-in vehicle. 11 Finally, Mid-Continent argues that the indirect loss exclusion bars coverage on this claim. 31 The district court rejected Mid-Continent's argument that the trade-in was not within the employee dishonesty coverage, but then found that the loss was excluded under the indirect loss exclusion. 12 The district court agreed with Mid-Continent that the figure of $12,700.00 [the value attached to the trade-in vehicle in the new car purchase contract] represents the benefit of the bargain, including profit, that [Performance] would have made on the trade-in deal. 32 We need not reach the indirect loss exclusion or the issue of whether there was employee dishonesty because we find that Performance did not make out its prima facie case that there was a covered loss. 13 It is an insured's burden to put forth evidence to show that its claim against an insurer is within the policy's coverage. See Sentry Ins. v. R.J. Weber Co., 2 F.3d 554, 556 (5th Cir.1993) (interpreting Texas law). According to the policy, Performance must prove a loss of ... Covered Property resulting directly from the Covered Cause of Loss. 14 The puzzling aspect of this claim is Performance's characterization and attempted valuation of the covered property. Throughout this litigation, Performance has claimed that its loss due to the fraudulent trade-in was a $2,000 cash down payment and a $12,700 trade-in vehicle. 15 Mid-Continent paid the $2,000 to account for the down payment that was never received. What is at issue now is what else, if anything, Mid-Continent owes. Performance claims it is due $12,700, which is the value that Wall, the dishonest employee, attributed to the trade-in vehicle. Part of Performance's burden in showing coverage is to show the value of the covered property. See Cotton Belt Ins. Co. v. A. Campdera & Co., 218 F.2d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1954) (Where property is destroyed or injured, which has a market value, this must be shown by the owner as the measure of damages.) (quoting Int'l-Great-N. R.R. Co. v. Casey, 46 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Tex. Comm'n App.1932, holding approved)); see also Wallis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2 S.W.3d 300, 302-03 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (explaining, in the context of the doctrine of concurrent causes, that an insured must prove the value of his loss). Performance has never attempted to arrive at the value of the trade-in vehicle by working backward from the value of the new Ford Taurus. Rather, on this record Performance's sole basis for valuing its loss is its dishonest employee's assessment of her mother's trade-in vehicle. Apparently this trade-in vehicle was never seen by anyone at Performance other than Wall, creating a question on this record whether the vehicle even existed. Under the circumstances that obtained here, the dishonest employee's assessment of the value of the vehicle does not suffice to establish the value of the vehicle, and there is no other evidence of value in the record. Performance has thus not created a genuine issue of material fact that it suffered a covered loss. We affirm the district court on this claim.