BROADCASTS.com

If Policy Says Building Coverage is "Not Provided" There Can be no Claim\n\nPost 4728\n\nPlaintiff Kota Me Patates LLC (\u201cKMP\u201d) filed a motion to compel appraisal\n to abate this insurance coverage dispute. Defendant Nationwide Mutual \nFire Insurance Company responded with a separate motion for summary \njudgment asserting that the policy does not cover KMP's claimed losses.\n\nIn Kota Me Patates LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 4:23-cv-01573,\n United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division (December \n21, 2023) the USDC's magistrate judge recommended a resolution of the \ndisputes.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nKMP had a business insurance policy with Nationwide (the \u201cPolicy\u201d), \neffective from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. The Policy states \nthat it \u201cincludes Buildings ..., Business Personal Property ..., or \nboth, depending on whether a Limit of Insurance is shown in the \nDeclarations for that type of property.\u201d (emphasis added). The \nreferenced Declarations page explicitly states that coverage for KMP's \nbuilding is \u201cNOT PROVIDED[.]\u201d\n\nOn January 24, 2022, a year after expiration of the policy a \nrepresentative from the office of KMP's attorney contacted Nationwide to\n report a claim for structural damage to KMP's property. The damage \nallegedly resulted from a plant explosion two years earlier, on January \n24, 2020.\n\nKMP sued Nationwide in Texas state court. Nationwide removed the suit to\n the USDC. In the meantime, Nationwide contacted KMP's counsel to obtain\n more information about KMP's claim. Eventually, KMP's attorney sent a \nformal notice of claim, stating that KMP intended to invoke the Policy's\n appraisal provision. Nationwide requested more information, including \nan opportunity to inspect the asserted damage and a sworn proof of loss.\n KMP failed to provide the information that Nationwide requested. \nNationwide therefore denied coverage for the loss, noting that KMP \nfailed to provide a description of how, when and where the loss or \ndamage occurred, did not provide prompt notice of the loss or damage, \nand failed to submit a signed, sworn proof of loss as requested.\n\nDespite filing the suit months earlier, KMP's attorney finally sent \nNationwide a demand letter on October 2, 2022. The letter included an \nestimate of $92,508.92 to repair KMP's structure. KMP then filed a \nmotion to compel appraisal and abate the suit. Nationwide instead filed a\n motion for summary judgment.\n\nANALYSIS\n\nNationwide sought summary judgment on KMP's breach of contract claim on \nmultiple grounds, including that the Policy does not cover KMP's claim \nfor damages to its building. Given the clear Policy language, the Court \nhad no need to address Nationwide's alternative contentions.\n\nThe Policy provides zero coverage for any damage to the building. \nBecause Nationwide did not breach the Policy by denying coverage, it is \nentitled to summary judgment on KMP's breach-of-contract claim.\n\nZALMA OPINION\n\nThe KMP claim was incompetent on many bases, not the least of which was a\n claim for damage to a building that the policy explicitly said in bold \nprint that building coverage was "NOT PROVIDED." Add to that a two year \nlate report, no compliance with policy conditions, and a spurious \nargument for tort damages and the Magistrate apparently had no choice \nbut to recommend granting Nationwide's motion and sending KMP and its \ncounsel home with a total loss. Counsel for KMP apparently failed to \nread the Declarations page of the policy. A total waste of time for the \nlitigants and the court.\n\n(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\n\n\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 \nhttp://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.