• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

by Marsheldondria “Dondria” Johnson

In Frederich v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., the 5th Circuit affirmed the granting of Trisura’s Motion for Summary Judgment. That judgement was based on the insurer’s payment of an appraisal award plus interest. The court found this foreclosed the Insured’s extra contractual claims. Frederich v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., No. 24-40748, 2025 WL 2840272 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025).

The dispute arose from wind and hail damage to the Plaintiffs’ property. Defendant Trisura’s investigation concluded that there was partial coverage for the claimed damage. Id. Dissatisfied with this result, Plaintiff invoked his Policy’s appraisal clause. The appraisers issued an award for $27,670.04 in covered losses. Id. Trisura paid the appraisal award, less the deductible and amounts previously paid. Id. Plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of Chapters 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code as well as breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Id. Trisura paid $2,996.27 for accrued interest, mooting Plaintiff’s prompt-payment claims under Chapter 542, causing Plaintiff to amend his complaint, asserting only the bad-faith tort claims under Chapter 541. Id. Trisura moved for summary judgment, arguing that its payment of the appraisal award plus interest extinguished Plaintiff’s claims. Id. Plaintiff argued that the plain language of Chapter 541 allows an insured to recover tort damages that are cumulative to and distinct from any breach-of-contract damages. Id. Summary judgment was granted, and Plaintiff appealed, attempting to use Trisura’s improper withholding of his claim payment as an independent tort. Id.

In its analysis, the court looked to its decision in Mirelez v. State Farm Lloyds, where it found that once the policy benefits have been paid, there must be an independent injury to recover in tort. Mirelez v. State Farm Lloyds, 127 F.4th 949 (5th Cir. 2025). The court further relied upon the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, which held that when the only “actual damages” that a plaintiff seeks are policy benefits that have already been paid pursuant to an appraisal provision, then the insured cannot recover for bad faith under Chapter 541 or in common law tort. Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W. 3d 127 (Tex. 2019). The Fifth Circuit further relied on USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, where the Texas Supreme Court found the insured could “recover policy benefits as actual damages in tort” only when the insured had not already recovered those benefits. USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018).

Based on this precedent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision granting Trisura’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Lowdown:

This case reinforces that insurers can effectively preclude additional bad faith tort recovery by promptly paying the policy benefits determined through the appraisal process. Moreover, if additional tort claims are asserted, there is now extensive precedent supporting the successful use of summary judgment motions to reduce litigation costs and insurers’ exposure further.

While we can never guarantee case outcomes, filing a motion for summary judgment is a critical procedural tool for insurers because it allows them to seek dismissal of claims without the need for a full trial. When successful, summary judgment resolves the case early before more costly phases such as oral and written discovery and trial preparation begin. This can significantly reduce defense costs, including attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses.

Additionally, early resolution through summary judgment limits an insurer’s risk of an adverse jury verdict, potential punitive damages, or prolonged legal uncertainty. In venues that fall under the purview of the Fifth Circuit, where the court increasingly requires insureds to show an independent injury beyond the delayed payment of policy benefits, insurers can leverage this legal standard to obtain dismissal of bad faith and other extra-contractual claims.

With this precedent in mind, steering high-exposure claims into the appraisal process may provide insurers with an efficient path to resolution. By securing an appraisal award and promptly paying both the award and any applicable interest, insurers can capitalize on this favorable line of case law to render any further tort-based litigation moot. While there is no one-size-fits-all legal strategy, given the proper set of facts, this strategy not only has the potential to save thousands in litigation costs but also allows legal teams to allocate time and resources toward cases with less well-settled legal questions.

Ultimately, the strategic use of summary judgment in fact scenarios similar to those discussed herein has the potential not only to cut costs but also to strengthen insurers’ negotiating position in future disputes.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.