Court Opinion

ID: 9676250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:19:15.423477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:46.382859
License: Public Domain

LÓPEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s opinion in regard to the Kuzniars’ claims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, violation of the Texas Insurance Code, and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practice Act, but I disagree with the majority opinion as it applies to the Kuzniars’ claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Although the legal injury rule applies to the Kuzniars’ other claims, the Supreme Court of Texas established a special test for determining when a cause of action accrues for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim in Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex. 1990). In Murray, the Supreme Court held that a cause of action for bad faith against an insurance company generally accrues on the date the insurance company denies the claim. See Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 828-29. However, when there is no outright denial of the claim, the exact date of accrual of a cause of action is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 828 n. 2. The case cited by the Supreme Court as authority for this position, Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Sims, 435 So.2d 1219, 1222 (Ala.1983), states the rules as follows: “The cause of *762action for bad faith refusal to honor insurance benefits accrues upon the event of the bad faith refusal, or upon the knowledge of . facts which would reasonably lead the insured to a discovery of the bad faith refusal.”
In this case, there was no outright denial of the Kuzniars’ 1992 claim. Accordingly, the date the Kuzniars’ bad faith claim accrued is a question of fact. Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 828 n. 2. Summary judgment would only be proper if no material fact exists with regard to the accrual date so that the date can be decided as a matter of law. See Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49) (movant has burden to show absence of genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law); see also Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 925 S.W.2d 565, 584 (Tex.1996) (Phillips, C.J., concurring and dissentingXquestion of fact can be proved so conclusively that it becomes a question of law). Resolving all doubt in favor of the Kuzniars, the court must accept that the Kuzniars were never contacted regarding the claim after State Farm’s adjuster told them to hire a plumber to test the system and an engineer to inspect their home. The court must also accept that the Kuzniars were never told that they would be reimbursed for these services.
Under article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code, an insurer is required to notify a claimant in writing when it denies an insurance claim. Tex. Ins.Code Ann. art. 21.55, § 3 (Vernon Supp.2000). It is undisputed that State Farm never provided written notice to the Kuzniars when it closed the file on the 1992 claim in January of 1993. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the investigation of the claim was State Farm’s responsibility and despite the fact that State Farm violated its statutory notification requirement, State Farm contends that the Kuzniars’ failure to pursue the matter further resolves all doubt as to when their cause of action accrued. I disagree. Balancing the responsibilities of the parties under the facts in this case in order to determine whether the Kuzniars’ bad faith claim accrued prior to August 7, 1994, is a matter that is best determined by a jury.1 Because I believe the summary judgment evidence does not conclusively establish the date on which the Kuzniars’ bad faith claim against State Farm accrued, I would reverse and remand the trial court’s judgment as to the Kuzniars’ claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

. The facts in this case are readily distinguishable from those in Tectonic Realty Inv. Co. v. CNA Lloyd’s of Texas Ins. Co., 812 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991), ovemded in part, Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.1998). In Tectonic Realty Inv. Co, the insurer continually corresponded with the insured regarding the proposed coverage. 812 S.W.2d at 653-54.