Christine E. Reule v. Colony Insurance Company
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 8691
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Reule owns a Sherwood Valley I condo unit; SVI council purchased a Colony commercial general liability policy.
- SVI allegedly harassed Reule, discriminated against her (female, disabled, single parent), and pursued foreclosure over dues.
- Reule has filed numerous suits against SVI and Colony-like entities since 2003; most claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- This suit targets Colony for alleged Insurance Code violations, bad faith, DTPA, housing acts, RICO, negligence, contract, libel/slander, and conspiracy.
- Colony moved for summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds; the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds, resulting in final judgment.
- Reule appeals, arguing improper consideration of no-evidence grounds, inadequate discovery time, and misapplication of third-party claimant status under the Insurance Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted Colony’s no-evidence and traditional summary-judgment grounds. | Reule contends the court treated no-evidence grounds improperly. | Colony argues grounds were properly applied; no evidence supported elements. | Held: affirmed; no-evidence and traditional grounds validly supported the judgment. |
| Whether Reule, as a third-party claimant, could impose duties on Colony under the Insurance Code and good-faith standards. | Reule argues she is a first-party insured due to policy status and premium payments. | Colony argues third-party claimant lacks standing; duties owed only to insureds. | Held: Reule lacks third-party standing; Rumley/Raymond rationale governs; no duties owed. |
| Whether Reule's due process and equal protection claims were properly barred or preserved. | Reule asserts violations of due process/equal protection. | Claims not properly alleged against Colony; cannot be raised for first time on appeal. | Held: issues waived/not preserved; no reversible error. |
| Whether Reule’s FFHA claim can survive given intertwined TFHA and lack of evidence. | Reule asserts discriminatory housing practices under FFHA and TFHA. | TFHA evidence insufficient; FFHA claims precluded by TFHA findings. | Held: FFHA and conspiracy claims barred; TFHA evidence insufficient; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumley v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 924 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996) (insured third-party not owed extra-contractual duties by insurer)
- Watson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1994) (insured not third-party claimant under unfair claim practices)
- Loudin v. Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co., 716 S.E.2d 696 (W. Va. 2011) (injured insured may be first-party when direct claim filed; dissent cited)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 244 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (additional insured cannot recover before liability determined)
- Caserotti v. State Farm Ins. Co., 791 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990) (insurer duties to insured vs. third-party)
- Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (interpretation of judgment language in summary judgment)
- G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (preclusion of related claims where underlying elements missing)
- Lampasas v. Spring Ctr., Inc., 988 S.W.2d 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (interrelated negligence-based claims treated collectively)