Court Opinion

ID: 9963332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 00:00:51.516846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.039486
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40244       Document: 53-1        Page: 1   Date Filed: 04/24/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                              ____________                           FILED
                                                                 April 24, 2024
                               No. 23-40244
                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                              ____________                           Clerk

Gloria Fric, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of
David Fric, Deceased,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

Allstate Life Insurance Company,

                                         Defendant—Appellee.
               ______________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Texas
                         USDC No. 6:21-CV-42
               ______________________________

Before King, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Plaintiff–Appellant Gloria Fric was the primary beneficiary of a
universal life insurance policy insuring the life of her husband. Following her
husband’s death in 2020, Mrs. Fric learned that the policy had lapsed ten
months earlier for failure to pay premiums. She sued Defendant–Appellee

       _____________________
       *
         Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

                                       1
Case: 23-40244        Document: 53-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-40244

Allstate Life Insurance Company, alleging that Allstate was required under
the terms of an autopay agreement to withdraw premiums necessary to keep
the policy in force.      The district court disagreed with Mrs. Fric’s
interpretation of the agreement and granted summary judgment in favor of
Allstate. We AFFIRM.
                             I. Background
       In 1987, David and Gloria Fric purchased a universal life insurance
policy with a face value of $200,000 insuring the life of Mr. Fric. Mrs. Fric
was the primary beneficiary. Because the cost of insurance under the policy
increased as Mr. Fric aged, the premium necessary to keep the policy in force
also increased.    In 2017, the Frics signed an autopay agreement that
authorized Allstate to withdraw a premium of $436.75 per month. This
agreement—the Electronic Fund Transfer Agreement, or EFTA—also
authorized Allstate to make changes to the premium amount upon “written,
verbal, or electronic request(s)” by the Frics. In addition, the EFTA
authorized the Frics’ insurance agent to make changes to the premium
amount on behalf of the Frics, with any request for changes to “be confirmed
by [Allstate] in writing.” Finally, the EFTA stated that “[e]lectronic debit
entries shall be initiated by [Allstate] to pay premiums . . . as authorized.”
       From August 2017 to October 2019, Allstate automatically withdrew
Mr. Fric’s $436.75 monthly payment as authorized under the EFTA. By
October 2019, however, the $436.75 payment was no longer sufficient to keep
the policy in force. Allstate accordingly mailed Mr. Fric a letter advising him
that the policy had entered a sixty-day grace period on account of insufficient
funds and that a payment of $1,064.59 was necessary to prevent the policy
from lapsing. The Frics never made the required payment. In December
2019, Allstate mailed Mr. Fric a letter informing him that the policy had

                                       2
Case: 23-40244        Document: 53-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                 No. 23-40244

lapsed and also provided a reinstatement application. The Frics did not
respond or seek reinstatement.
       Mrs. Fric says that she “do[es] not recall seeing” either letter from
Allstate, although she offers no evidence that the letters were not mailed. She
also says that, after executing the EFTA, she and her husband “fully
expected that Allstate would automatically withdraw all the money necessary
to keep the policy in effect.”
       Mr. Fric passed away in October 2020, and Mrs. Fric promptly made
a claim on the policy. Allstate rejected her claim, informing her that the
policy had lapsed ten months earlier. Mrs. Fric then sued in state court,
bringing claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) bad faith under Texas statutory
and common law, and (3) fraud and promissory estoppel. Allstate removed
to federal court, where the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.     The district court denied Mrs. Fric’s motion and granted
Allstate’s.
                             II. Discussion
       The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor
of Allstate on all three categories of claims. This court reviews a district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp. v.
Affiliated FM Ins., 564 F.3d 707, 709 (5th Cir. 2009).
       Beginning with the breach of contract claim, the EFTA, at most,
required Allstate to withdraw $436.75 per month, which Allstate did do until
the policy entered the grace period in October 2019. Under Section C of the
EFTA, the Frics “authorize[d]” Allstate “to deduct payments from” their
bank account and designated a “payment amount” of $436.75, to be paid
“monthly.” Section C also indicated that Allstate could change the premium
amount, but only upon “written, verbal or electronic request(s)” by the
Frics, who never submitted such a request. To be sure, the Frics also

                                       3
Case: 23-40244        Document: 53-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                 No. 23-40244

“authoriz[ed]” their agent, in Section D, to make changes to the premium
amount on their behalf. But no language in that section or elsewhere in the
EFTA required the agent to make such changes. Nor did Section D grant
Allstate, the defendant in this action, the authority to make changes on the
Frics’ behalf; any request for change that the agent made on the Frics’ behalf
was to be “confirmed by [Allstate] in writing.”
       Mrs. Fric’s primary argument that Allstate was required to
automatically withdraw premiums sufficient to keep the policy in force is
based on Section E of the EFTA. Section E states, with emphasis added, that
“[e]lectronic debit entries shall be initiated by [Allstate] to pay premiums and
other charges and fees for or associated with the policy listed on this
document or other policies as authorized.” Mrs. Fric is right that, by using
the word “shall,” Section E imposed an obligation on Allstate to withdraw
premiums. But it imposed this obligation only to the extent “authorized.”
And the Frics authorized Allstate to withdraw only $436.75 per month,
without ever having requested that the premium amount be increased.
Allstate thus did not breach the EFTA by failing to withdraw more than the
$436.75 monthly payment.
       In addition to the breach of contract claim, Mrs. Fric brought several
extracontractual bad-faith claims, alleging that Allstate violated the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Texas Insurance Code, and the common
law duty of good faith and fair dealing. All of these claims are based on
allegedly false or misleading representations contained in the EFTA.
       Because we determined above that the EFTA imposed no obligation
on Allstate to withdraw premiums sufficient to keep the policy in force,
Mrs. Fric’s extracontractual bad-faith claims must fail. The holding on the
breach of contract claim indicates that Allstate did not make the alleged false
or misleading representations on which Mrs. Fric’s bad-faith claims are

                                       4
 Case: 23-40244         Document: 53-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                      No. 23-40244

based. See Nexion Health at Omaha, Inc. v. Martin, No. 06-10-00017-CV,
2010 WL 2690562, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 7, 2010, no pet.)
(determining that unambiguous contractual provision was “neither
misleading nor a material misrepresentation”); cf. Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW,
Inc., 159 S.W.3d 731, 743 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)
(concluding that claim under the DTPA “founded solely on the [plaintiff’s]
breach of contract allegations [was] not actionable as a claim of
misrepresentations under the DTPA”).                 Apart from vaguely invoking
Allstate’s “course of conduct,” Mrs. Fric makes no claim that Allstate made
a false or misleading representation outside of the EFTA. This case is thus
unlike two cases Mrs. Fric cites in her opening and reply briefs. In one, the
defendant insurance company had a “practice of sending a notice of premium
due letter for over twenty years . . . and then suddenly ceas[ed] the practice,”
resulting in a lapse. Cumpian v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins., No. SA-10-
CA-366-FB, 2010 WL 11601551, at *4, 6 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2010)
(concluding that the plaintiff plausibly pleaded that the insurance company’s
“wrongful repudiation” of its twenty-year practice amounted to a
“misrepresentation”). In another, an insurance agent falsely represented
that the grace period for paying a policy premium would be extended.
Mendoza v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 932 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1996, no writ). No such misrepresentations occurred here.1
        Mrs. Fric also brought claims for fraud and promissory estoppel. In
her reply brief, she abandons her claim for fraud by misrepresentation and
her claim for promissory estoppel, deeming each “unnecessary or duplicative
        _____________________
        1
         The parties dedicate much of their briefing to disputing the application of USAA
Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018), which clarified Texas case law
on when insureds can recover damages on extracontractual bad-faith claims. Because our
holding above is sufficient to dispose of these claims, we decline to consider how exactly
Menchaca applies in this case.

                                            5
Case: 23-40244        Document: 53-1       Page: 6     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-40244

given [Allstate’s] apparent concession that the EFTA was an in-force
contract,” which Allstate had contested below.          Mrs. Fric nonetheless
attempts to preserve a claim for fraud by nondisclosure. As Allstate argues,
however, Mrs. Fric never pleaded such a claim. This claim is, therefore, not
appropriately before the court. Cutrera v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ.,
429 F.3d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 2005).
       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                       6
Case: 23-40244         Document: 53-1       Page: 7   Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-40244

Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
         With deepest respect for my learned colleagues, I would reverse the
district court’s grant of summary judgment on Mrs. Fric’s breach of contract
claim.
         Under Texas law, we give insurance contracts their plain meaning,
considering the instrument as a whole. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crocker,
246 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Tex. 2008) (“[W]e must give the policy’s words their
plain meaning.” (citation omitted)); Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 972
S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. 1998) (“We must read all parts of the contract
together.” (citation omitted)). Here, the Electronic Funds Transfer
Agreement (“EFTA”) obligated Allstate to withdraw sufficient funds to
keep the Frics’ account open. Three components of the EFTA work together
to create this obligation.
         First, the very first line of the EFTA reads: “I (We) authorize . . .
Allstate Life Insurance Company . . . to debit my (our) account indicated to
pay the premiums/payments, and other charges (such as non-sufficient funds),
from the account listed on this form.”
         Second, in Section D of the EFTA, the Frics authorized their
insurance agent to make any necessary changes to the “premium amount . . .
on [their] behalf.” What purpose would these authorizations serve, if not to
ensure the Frics paid the required amount for coverage, even when that
amount varied from the recurring payment? If Allstate were in fact obligated
only to withdraw the specified recurring payment, as the insurance company
contends, there would be no reason to authorize “other charges” payments
or agent-directed changes to premium amounts. Those authorizations would
be meaningless, requiring the Frics to initiate the payments and changes
themselves, despite the EFTA.

                                        7
Case: 23-40244        Document: 53-1       Page: 8     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-40244

       Third, Section E of the EFTA provides: “Electronic debit entries shall
be initiated by The Company to pay premiums and other charges and fees for or
associated with the policy listed on this document or other policies as
authorized.” The most natural reading of that provision requires Allstate to
debit any charges for the life insurance account listed, as authorized by the
two other sections mentioned above.
       At a minimum, the EFTA is ambiguous. Under Texas law, ambiguous
contracts survive summary judgment. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394
(Tex. 1983) (“When a contract contains an ambiguity, the granting of a
motion for summary judgment is improper because the interpretation of the
instrument becomes a fact issue.” (citation omitted)). So even if the EFTA
could be read as the majority reads it, it could also be read the way I (and Mrs.
Fric) read it. So I would reverse and send the case to trial.

                                       8