SA-OMAX 2007, L.P. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 374 S.W.3d 594

Appellant SA-OMAX 2007, L.P. owned a building insured with Underwriters.
Policy covered direct physical loss/damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss, with a theft sublimit of $25,000.
Declarations set building limit at $1,237,461 and theft sublimit at $25,000; policy also states the most paid for loss in one occurrence is the Declarations limit.
In June 2010, thieves stole copper from roof HVAC units, damaging the roof and allowing rain damage to interior; total loss exceeded $80,000.
Underwriters paid $25,000, denying remaining coverage; appellant sued for breach, Insurance Code violations, and bad-faith breach; both sides moved for summary judgment.
Trial court granted Underwriters’ summary judgment and denied SA-OMAX’s, concluding the theft sublimit applied to the roof damage and other losses in the theft event.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the theft sublimit applies to damage to the building caused during theft	SA-OMAX argues the sublimit only caps theft value, not incidental building damage	Underwriters contends the sublimit applies to any direct loss/damage caused by or resulting from theft	The sublimit applies to damage caused by or resulting from theft; judgment affirmed for Underwriters

Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (primary contract-interpretation framework protecting intent of written contract)
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Steinberg, 316 S.W.3d 752 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (theft exclusion applies to damages caused by removal of property; construction of theft-related losses)
Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1985) (standard for traditional summary judgment)
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 264 S.W.3d 160 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (contract interpretation; ambiguity when multiple reasonable meanings)
FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.2000) (summary judgment standard when both sides move)