A magistrate of the Northern District of Texas recommended that the district court deny an insurer's motion for summary judgment in a commercial hail damage dispute, holding that the concurrent causation doctrine does not foreclose the insured's breach of contract claim and that the bona fide dispute doctrine does not bar the insured's extra-contractual claims where evidence showed a field adjuster had advised the insurer of hail damage to the property, but that the insurer relied instead on a non-engineer 'consultant' who provided no explanation for observations that differed from the field adjuster and where a fact issue remained as to whether the insurer misrepresented the policy when it denied hail damage to metal roofing despite there being no cosmetic damage exclusion in the policy.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login