602 F. App'x 981
5th Cir.2015Background
- Continental Business Credit, Inc. appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Euler‑Hermes American Credit Indemnity Co. over contested insurance claims under a commercial policy.
- The parties settled some claims without an admission or judicial determination of Euler‑Hermes’s liability under the Policy.
- Continental asserted multiple causes of action: Prompt Payment Act, extra‑contractual claims (bad faith, negligence, reformation), Texas DTPA, and common‑law fraud.
- Euler‑Hermes moved for summary judgment arguing lack of coverage, lack of evidence to support extra‑contractual claims, and that Continental failed to establish required elements for various claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Euler‑Hermes and denied Continental’s motion for reconsideration; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prompt Payment Act liability | Continental argued it could pursue Prompt Payment Act remedies despite settling some claims | Euler‑Hermes argued no liability was established and settlement contained no admission of coverage | Summary judgment for Euler‑Hermes: PPA requires a finding of insurer liability/coverage; no such determination here |
| Extra‑contractual claims notice / "no‑evidence" defense | Continental contended it lacked fair notice to respond to Euler‑Hermes’s summary grounds | Euler‑Hermes argued its motion/memo adequately notified Continental to produce evidence on each element | Held for Euler‑Hermes: moving papers met Celotex notice requirements; Continental had opportunity to present evidence |
| Motion for reconsideration | Continental sought reconsideration, asserting new or previously unconsidered evidence/arguments | Euler‑Hermes argued Continental failed to present available evidence at summary judgment | Denial affirmed: reconsideration not a vehicle to rehash available evidence; failure to present earlier was unexcused |
| Bad faith / negligence / reformation / DTPA / fraud | Continental claimed insurer acted in bad faith, negligently drafted policy, sought reformation, and asserted DTPA and fraud claims | Euler‑Hermes argued it had reasonable basis to deny/limit payment; no duty to draft for all perceived risks; no mutual mistake for reformation; procedural waiver on DTPA/fraud | Summary judgment for Euler‑Hermes: no evidence of unreasonable denial (bad faith); no recognized duty as alleged (negligence); no proof of original agreement/mutual mistake (reformation); DTPA and fraud waived for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment standard review)
- Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (material fact/jury standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (genuine dispute / reasonable jury standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (moving party’s burden to inform court of basis for summary judgment)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir.) (limits on motions for reconsideration)
- Higginbotham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 F.3d 456 (5th Cir.) (insurer not liable for bad faith if reasonable basis to deny claim)