BROADCASTS.com

b'

FLOOD EXCLUSION APPLIES TO DEFEAT CLAIM 

Insured Admits Loss Caused by Flood Sufficient to Deny Claim Virginia Sosa appealed from the county court\\u2019s orders granting summary  judgment in favor of appellee Auto Club Indemnity Co. (\\u201cAuto Club\\u201d) and  denying Sosa\\u2019s motion for new trial. The court granted summary judgment  on several grounds raised by Auto Club, including that Sosa\\u2019s claims  were barred by limitations and by the exclusion in her homeowner\\u2019s  insurance policy for damages caused by flood and surface water. 

In  Virginia Sosa v. Auto Club Indemnity Co., No. 01-21-00312-CV, Court of  Appeals of Texas, First District (August 30, 2022) the Court of Appeal  resolved the dispute because Sosa did not,  challenge the summary  judgment ground that her claims were caused by flood or surface water,  which is expressly excluded from coverage under her homeowner\\u2019s policy. 

BACKGROUND  

Sosa\\u2019s house was damaged during Hurricane Harvey on August 26, 2017.   Shortly thereafter, Sosa filed a claim with Auto Club, which insured her  house. Sosa reported that two feet of floodwater had entered her home,  her roof was missing shingles and was leaking, and she had sustained  interior damage. Auto Club determined that her damage was caused by  flood water, which was expressly excluded from coverage under Sosa\\u2019s  homeowner\\u2019s insurance policy that was in effect during Hurricane Harvey.  On September 26, 2017, Auto Club denied her claim. On November 11, 2020,  almost three years after the denial and more than three years after the  damage, Sosa filed suit against Auto Club for breach of the insurance  policy.  Sosa filed a first amended petition, which was her live pleading when  the county court entered summary judgment against her. Sosa\\u2019s amended  petition was identical to her original petition except that it changed  the date of loss from August 26, 2017, to June 28, 2019. 

AUTO CLUB\\u2019S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

The county court granted Auto Club\\u2019s summary judgment motion. The court  also found that Auto Club had disproved several elements of Sosa\\u2019s  breach of contract action; flood and surface water damages were not  covered under the policy; and all flood and surface water damages were  excluded from coverage. The court ordered that Sosa take nothing and  dismissed her claims with prejudice.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT  Sosa, as an appellant must challenge each independent ground that could  fully support the trial court\\u2019s challenged ruling. When an unchallenged  ground supports a complained-of ruling or judgment, the Court of Appeal  must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent ground, and  thus any error in the grounds challenged on appeal is harmless because  the unchallenged independent ground fully supports the complained-of  ruling or judgment.