Bank that bought insurance for homeowner sued for hurricane damage repairs
When a bank that's holding a mortgage buys insurance for a homeowner, is the bank responsible for repairs from hurricane damage?
A federal district court in Texas has rejected a homeowner’s lawsuit seeking to require his bank to repair hurricane damage to his home because it had purchased insurance on his behalf.
The case
In August 2004, Antonio C. Ponce obtained a mortgage from Chase for $66,103, secured by his home in Montgomery County, Texas. As part of the transaction, Ponce agreed to purchase “[f]ire and extended coverage” insurance. If Ponce failed to purchase insurance, Chase could insure the property “at [Ponce’s] expense” by adding the “cost of any such insurance” to his “indebtedness as provided in the security document.”
Ponce subsequently sued Chase, alleging that it had purchased insurance on his home and increased his monthly payments, but failed to repair damage caused by Hurricane Harvey.
Chase moved for summary judgment.
Related: Weather-related events and insurance fraud
The district court’s decision
The district court granted Chase’s motion.
In its decision, the district court explained that the promissory note, agreement to purchase insurance, and deed of trust signed by Ponce authorized Chase to purchase insurance on Ponce’s home, and at Ponce’s expense, if he failed to purchase insurance and provide Chase proof that he had done so. Under the documents, the district court continued, the insurance premiums were to be added to Ponce’s monthly payments. The district court pointed out that, beginning in September 2017, Chase increased Ponce’s payments to $585.07 because of “[t]axes and/or [i]nsurance.”
The district court then rejected Ponce’s contention that Chase, rather than the third-party insurer, had to repair the damage to his home caused by Hurricane Harvey. The district court found nothing to support the inference that Chase, rather than the third-party insurer, had an obligation to make the repairs.
Under Texas law, the district court observed, a homeowner was “not a third-party beneficiary of an insurance agreement between a lender and insurer,” unless the lender and insurer intended “to secure some benefit to” the homeowner.
Because Ponce neither identified specific record evidence nor articulated how that evidence supported an inference that Chase had improperly refused to pay for repairs needed because of hurricane damage, summary judgment was proper on his claim, the district court concluded.
The case is Ponce v. Chase Bank, No. NO. H-18-2345 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2018).
Related: Insurance litigation balloons in insurer-friendly federal courts, report finds
Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., (smeyerowitz@meyerowitzcommunications.com) is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry’s only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals.