Preview
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
CAUSE NO. C-3522-22-E
VITA VILLANUEVA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
Vs. § 275th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE §
Defendant. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE NO-
EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMETN AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, VITA VILLANUEVA, and submits this Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and pursuant thereto would
respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
OBJECTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING
1. As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s Reply in Support for Motion for Summary
Judgment is clearly an abuse of motion based on disputed issues of material fact to which Plaintiff
files this exception and objection as the original motion in which Defendant seeks summary review
is ambiguous and does not provide fair notice of the evidentiary issues. A motion for summary
judgment should state the specific grounds for summary judgment. 1 A motion for summary
judgment also must give fair notice of the basis on which summary judgment is sought.2
Defendant’s new Reply is wrought with factual references to evidence which their own motion
1
Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c),(i).
2
Waite v. Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C., 137 S.W.3d 277, 281 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.)(holding
when movant only cited rule for no-evidence summary judgment, did not recite traditional standards for summary
judgment, and did not attempt to establish that there was no issue of material fact and that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, motion did not give fair notice that it sought traditional summary judgment)(Emphasis
added).
1
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
evidences that there exist disputed issues of material facts that preclude the grant of summary
judgment.
2. In Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary
Judgment, Defendant only raises evidentiary issues related to the admissions to urge their Motion
for Summary Judgment. In fact, their argument completely ignores the discovery responses
provided by the Plaintiff through Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production and instead focuses
squarely on the argument that the Plaintiff lacks evidence on the basis that they allege she
admitted to Defendant’s propounded admissions. Defendant’s Reply shifts gears and raises new
arguments regarding the evidence produced in discovery, evidence Defendant implied was never
even produced in their original motion.
3. Defendant’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment simply recites the
elements of each of Plaintiff’s cause of actions and does not address the evidence produced by
the Plaintiff, instead falsely states Plaintiff has produced no discovery when stating, “Plaintiff
has had ample time to conduct discovery but has simply chosen not to do so.” 3 Following this
misrepresentation, Defendant simply states Plaintiff has produced no evidence on each of her
causes of action. A no-evidence motion for summary judgment cannot be conclusory or generally
allege that there is no evidence to support the nonmovant’s claim or defense. 4 A motion that
states there is no evidence for “one or more” or “any of” the elements of Plaintiff’s claim is not
sufficient. 5 The purpose of the specificity requirement is to provide the other parties with fair
notice, providing the nonmovant with adequate information for their opposing motion and
defining the issues. 6
3
Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary Judgment; page 3.
4
Timpte Indus. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d at 310; Holloway v. Texas Elec. Util. Constr., Ltd., 282 S.W.3d 207,213
(Tex.App.—Tyler 2009, no pet.).
5
Community Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671, 695-96 (Tex.2017).
6
Timpte Indus., 286 S.W.3d at 311.
2
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
II.
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ON THE NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT & MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
AFFIDAVITS
4. Plaintiff requests a continuance and motion for leave to allow adequate time for
the Plaintiff to file the supplemental affidavits attached to the forgoing Response. In Defendant’s
Reply, they state that Plaintiff failed her burden to produce any evidence as to several elements,
but the court should give the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure any defects in its summary-judgment
evidence identified by the Defendant in its reply. 7 The court may grant a continuance to allow a
nonmovant to obtain an affidavit or deposition testimony necessary to support its claim. 8 The
timing of Defendant’s Reply, filed on July 6, 2023, does not provide Plaintiff with adequate time
to cure defects in her summary judgment evidence 7 days in advance of the current setting, set
for submission on July 11, 2023. Under these circumstances, the nonmovant is left to ask the
court to state a deadline to cure the defects and a date for the hearing. 9
5. To file late summary-judgment evidence, the Plaintiff must obtain leave of court. 10
The party must obtain a written ruling on its motion for leave to file late summary-judgment
evidence. 11 To secure permission to file the late affidavits less than seven days before the hearing,
the nonmovant must file a motion for leave to file late summary judgment evidence that
establishes (1) good cause and (2) no undue prejudice. 12 Good cause is established by sworn
proof that the nonmovant’s failure to timely respond was not intentional or the result of conscious
indifference but was the result of an accident or mistake. 13 The lack of undue prejudice is
7
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f) (party should be given opportunity to cure defects in form of affidavits and attachments).
8
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g)
9
Peerenboom v. HSP Foods, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.—Waco 1995, no writ).
10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Benchmark Bank. V. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex.1996).
11
Mathis v. RKL Design/Build, 189 S.W.3d 839, 842-43 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
12
Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex.2005).
13
Id.
3
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
established by showing the late response will not unduly delay or otherwise injure the
nonmovant. 14 The standard for allowing a late summary judgment response is the same as for
withdrawing a deemed admission.15
6. The opinions and statements provided by the Plaintiff Vita Villanueva and her two
experts Julio Quirino and Jesse Ramirez are material to the fact and legal issues involved with
this case, but to date their depositions have not been noticed or conducted by Defendant. As such,
their personal knowledge and opinions have only been introduced through limited capacity in the
discovery conducted thus far. The production of these individuals’ affidavits is not intentional
or through conscious indifference to the summary judgment process but instead through mistake.
Defendant’s Reply highlighted defects in the evidence produced by Plaintiff and these affidavits
are produced for purposes of curing those defects. This does not place any undue prejudice on
the Defendant as they had ample opportunity to depose Vita Villanueva and Julio Quirino, as
they were named in Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. Additionally, if leave of court and a
continuance is granted, Defendant will have sufficient time to reply or respond with controverting
affidavits if necessary.
III.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THAT PRECLUDES THE GRANT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
7. In support of this response to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment Plaintiffs attach the following summary judgment evidence and incorporate
same by reference as if fully set forth herein verbatim:
Exhibit C: Affidavit of Plaintiff Vita Villanueva
o Exhibit C-1: Defendant’s Denial of Claim Letter Dated Oct. 2, 2020.
14
Id.
15
Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 687-88 (Tex.2002).
4
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
Exhibit D: Affidavit of Julio Quirino
Exhibit E: Affidavit of Jesse Ramirez
III.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
8. The burden is on the Plaintiff to raise a genuine issue of material fact about the
elements challenged by the motion for summary judgment. 16 The trial court must resolve all
reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the nonmovant. 17 To defeat a no-evidence motion,
the Plaintiff “is not required to marshal its proof; its response need only point out evidence that
raises a fact issue on the challenged elements.” 18 If the Plaintiff presents more than a scintilla of
evidence on the challenged elements, it is entitled to a trial on the merits. 19
9. The Evidence Shows Defendant Breached the Contract: The evidence presented,
meets every element of a breach of contract. (1) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid
contract. By Defendant’s own acknowledgement in their Motion’s recitation of the facts, the
Plaintiff was insured under a policy provided by Defendant. Plaintiff Vita Villanueva stated she
has been with Great Lakes Insurance since 2014. 20 (2) Plaintiff performed or tendered performance
by paying her monthly premiums for insurance coverage for her property. (3) Defendant breached
the contract by failing to abide by the terms of the insurance policy language contained in
Defendant’s Exhibit A-1.
10. In Plaintiff’s insurance policy with Defendant, the policy states the Plaintiff’s
property is insured against windstorm damage:
16
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); First United Pentecostal Ch. v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex.2017); KCM Fin. LLC
v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70, 79 (Tex.2015); Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex.2013).
17
Lehrer v. Zwernemann, 14 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); see Painter v.
Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125, 130 (Tex.2018).
18
Saenz v. Southern Un. Gas Co., 999 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1999, pet. denied).
19
Ridgeway
20
See Exhibit C - Affidavit of Plaintiff Vita Villanueva.
5
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
21
11. The extent of repairs for covered losses includes reasonable repairs, the removal of
covered property, as well as consequential loss:
22
12. By the account of the Plaintiff, observed a windstorm on July 25, 2020. 23 She
observed water entering her house during the storm and the following days observed ceiling stains
21
See Defendant Exhibit A-1; page 26.
22
Id.
23
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.
6
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
that had never existed on her ceiling before the storm. 24 Julio Quirino of Tectum Consulting, LLC
inspected the Plaintiff’s property and found windstorm damages and calculated an estimate for the
reasonable repairs necessary to fix the windstorm damages. 25 Julio’s estimate calculated for a full
replacement of the dwelling roof, patio roof, and repairs to three interior rooms. 26 It is the
professional opinions of both Julio Quirino of Tectum Consulting, LLC and public adjuster Jesse
Ramirez that Defendant failed to provide adequate coverage for the damages with no reasonable
basis. 27
13. The 4th element of a breach of contract is that the Plaintiff suffered economic
damages as a result of Defendant’s breach. Plaintiff has paid her monthly premiums to be provided
homeowners insurance. 28 She has been paying her share of the bargain, but without the benefit.
Under this contract, she should be provided payment for the full amount of reasonable repairs for
the covered damages to her property, but instead she was issued a full denial on her claim.29
Plaintiff should have been paid $33,785.71, less the deductible, because that is what she was owed
under her insurance contract.
14. The Evidence Shows Defendant Breached the Duty of Good Faith & Fair
Dealing: The Defendant had no reasonable basis for the denial in paying the Plaintiff’s claim and
the Defendant should have known this fact. The review of this claim by both Julio Quirino and
Jesse Ramirez finds that Defendant’s denial of covered damages in this claim was made with no
reasonable basis. 30 Jesse Ramirez is a public adjuster who has adjusted claims for insurers and
insureds alike. He is familiar with the Texas Insurance Code, and from his evaluation, there is no
24
Id.
25
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B.
26
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3.
27
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
28
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.
29
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5.
30
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
7
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
basis for denying coverage for damages that clearly stemmed from a covered peril, the windstorm
that occurred on July 25, 2020. 31
15. The Plaintiff reported the claim to include interior water leaks. 32 Defendant
observed windstorm damages to the property’s roof, a prerequisite to providing coverage for
interior water damage from a windstorm, and still denied coverage to the interior of the property. 33
Under the policy, if there is a storm created opening, interior water damage caused by a windstorm
is covered. 34 However, the Defendant never investigated the damaged shingle entry point for water
for the interior leaks and never even provided an explanation for that. 35 Defendant should have
known the possibility of this fact as it is written out in their policy.
16. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated Tex. Ins. Code §§ 541.060(a)(1),
(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(7): Defendant asserts that the “Plaintiff’s purported estimate does
not establish the alleged damage was caused by a covered cause of loss for which Great Lakes
should have paid.” 36 Defendant’s own inspection notes identify the Plaintiff’s property was
damaged by a windstorm to the exterior rooftops and interior in their inspection notes. 37 As
previously established, damages caused by a windstorm is a covered peril under the policy. 38
Plaintiff’s estimate was prepared by Julio Quirino, and he prepared his estimate to repair all the
reasonable and necessary repairs associated with the windstorm. 39 Furthermore, it was his
professional opinion and observation that the damages he observed were consistent with damages
31
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
32
See Defendant’s Exhibit A-2 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.
33
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5.
34
See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1.
35
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5.
36
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; paragraph 8.
37
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5.
38
See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1.
39
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit D.
8
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
from a windstorm event. 40
17. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(1) by misrepresenting to the
Plaintiff the full extent of coverage she was allowed under the policy she had with the Defendant.
The policy clearly states that her property is insured against windstorm damages and the coverage
includes reasonable repairs, property removal, and the consequential loss related to those repairs. 41
Defendant underscoped the full extent of damage to the dwelling’s roof and only provided
coverage for one laminated shingle. 42 This does not allow for waste or any reasonable repairs to
fix even the underscoped coverage Defendant allowed. There is no practical reality where the
Plaintiff can go and obtain one isolated ridge shingle at a store and install that one isolate shingle
back onto her roof without affecting the associated area of the roof.
18. By virtue of Tectum Consulting’s estimate, the opinion of Julio Quirino, and the
opinion of public adjuster Jesse Ramirez, the Defendant did not provide coverage for all the
damages caused by the windstorm and that reasonably should have been covered under the
policy. 43 It is the professional opinion of Jesse Ramirez that the Defendant misrepresented
material facts about Plaintiff’s claim to the Plaintiff. 44
19. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(2)(A), because Defendant failed to
attempt in good faith to resolve Plaintiff’s claim when Defendant’s liability was clear they should
have provided coverage for the Plaintiff’s full roof and the interior damages as they had water
damage from a storm created opening. Instead of attempting to make a payment on these damages,
they denied the Plaintiff’s claim and issued out a full denial on the basis that the Defendant’s
40
Id.
41
See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1.
42
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4.
43
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
44
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
9
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
minimal coverage fell below the Plaintiff’s insurance deductible. 45 Plaintiff never received any
payment from the Defendant on her claim, despite the evidence being reasonably clear that
Defendant owed a duty under the policy to provide the Plaintiff with the full extent of coverage
she was owed as reflected by Plaintiff’s competing estimate prepared by Tectum Consulting. 46
20. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(7), because Defendant refused to
pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. As noted previously, Defendant’s
inspection notes take no effort to investigate the water source entering the roof of the property to
cause the interior water damages that were denied coverage. 47 There is no attempt to enter the
property’s attic and observe for water entry that led to the ceiling stains. 48 Public adjuster Jesse
Ramirez found that the Defendant unfairly evaluated this claim and ultimately did not conduct a
reasonable investigation. 49
21. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(4), because Plaintiff did not receive
timely indication of acceptance or rejection, regarding the full and entire claim. The Plaintiff’s
full claim was under-evaluated and underscoped by the Defendant and left out significant portions
of the Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(3), when the Defendant
failed to promptly provide to Plaintiff a reasonable explanation for the basis in the policy for the
denial of the claim, as they had no reasonable basis in law or fact to deny this claim. This is
supported by the fact that Julio Quirino’s estimate found damages far in excess of the Plaintiff’s
deductible and Jesse Ramirez found that the Defendant had no reasonable basis for denying
coverage for the full roof and interior water damages. 50
45
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.
46
See Plaintiff’s B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
47
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5.
48
Id.
49
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
50
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
10
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
22. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated Tex. Ins. Code §§ 542.055, 542.056, and
542.058: Julio Quirino’s inspection revealed windstorm damages to the property that amounted
to $33,785.71. 51 These were the damages that he determined were reasonably necessary to repair
the damages caused by the windstorm. 52 According to Jesse Ramirez, the extent of observable
damages warranted coverage for a full roof replacement as well as inclusion of coverage for the
interior rooms due to the compromised condition of the roof. 53 Furthermore, Jesse Ramirez opined
that with the information that was available to the Defendant at the end of their initial inspection,
they should have had reasonable information to issue payment to the Plaintiff for insurance
coverage for what was a covered peril under the policy. 54
23. Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding
timely acknowledging Plaintiff’s claim, beginning an investigation of Plaintiff’s claim, and
requesting all information reasonably necessary to investigate Plaintiff’s claim, within the
statutorily mandated time of receiving notice of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant’s conduct constitutes
a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins. Code §542.055.
24. Defendant failed to accept Plaintiff’s full and entire claim within the statutorily
mandated time of receiving all necessary information. In contrast to Tectum’s estimate and the
opinions of Julio Quirino and Jesse Ramirez, Defendant severely undervalued the Plaintiff’s claim
and excluded areas of coverage that should have been allowed under the policy. 55 Defendant’s
conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins.
Code §542.056.
51
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit D.
52
Id.
53
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
54
Id. and Defendant’s Exhibit A-1.
55
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
11
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
25. Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding
payment of claim without delay. Specifically, it has delayed full payment of Plaintiff’s claim
longer than allowed and, to date Plaintiff has not received full payment for the claim. Plaintiff
should have been provided coverage for a full roof replacement and interior repairs as required
under the insurance policy, but to this day the Defendant has failed to pay these damages it properly
owes under the policy. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code,
Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins. Code §542.058.
26. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated the DTPA: The Defendant’s material
misrepresentations regarding insurance policy coverage to the Plaintiff, advising of false
information regarding the nature of her property’s damages that led to the manipulated and
diminished value of coverage offered by the Defendant that fell below her insurance deductible.
The coverage decisions made by the Defendant were inaccurate and misleading. 56 Defendant
excluded damages on Plaintiff’s property that are clearly covered under that policy; windstorm
damages to the entire roof that exposed the interior rooms to water leaks. 57 The misrepresentation
of the full scope of damages to Plaintiff’s property was performed to avoid paying the Plaintiff a
financial benefit she was owed under the contract for insurance services she had with the
Defendant.
V.
PRAYER
Plaintiff requests the Court DENY Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for
Final Summary Judgment. Plaintiff also requests that this Court strike Plaintiff’s deemed
admissions. Plaintiff further respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs all other relief to
56
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.
57
Id.
12
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
which they are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
MOORE LAW FIRM
4900 North 10th Street, Suite F-3
McAllen, Texas 78504
Telephone No. (956) 631-0745
Telecopier No. (888) 266-0971
By: /s/ R. Nicholas Moore
R. Nicholas Moore
State Bar No. 24098134
J. Michael Moore
State Bar No. 14349550
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
13
Electronically Filed
7/10/2023 5:21 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Monica Valdez
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this the 10th day of July, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final
Summary Judgment was forwarded to all counsel of record and counsel with a courtesy copy to
counsel who have indicated that they will be appearing as counsel of record in these proceedings
in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as indicated below:
All Counsel in the Related Cases:
Valerie Henderson
Texas Bar No. 24078655
vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com
Kirsten D. Vesel
Texas Bar No. 24121183
kvesel@bakerdoneslon.com
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ. P.C.
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: (713) 650-9700
Facsimile: (713) 650-9701
/s/ R. Nicholas Moore
R. Nicholas Moore
14
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
J. Michael Moore
Bar No. 14349550
lit-docket@moore-firm.com
Envelope ID: 77373431
Filing Code Description: Answer/Response
Filing Description: PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE OF THE NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMETN AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
AFFIDAVITS
Status as of 7/11/2023 10:27 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Vita Villanueva
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
J. MichaelMoore firstpartylit@moore-firm.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Great Lakes Insurance SE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Kirsten Vesel kvesel@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT
Valerie Henderson vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
VALAERIE HENDERSON cbravo@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez CAUSE NO. C-3522-22-E VITA VILLANUEVA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § Vs. § 275th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE § Defendant. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE NO- EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMETN AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff, VITA VILLANUEVA, and submits this Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and pursuant thereto would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. OBJECTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING 1. As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s Reply in Support for Motion for Summary Judgment is clearly an abuse of motion based on disputed issues of material fact to which Plaintiff files this exception and objection as the original motion in which Defendant seeks summary review is ambiguous and does not provide fair notice of the evidentiary issues. A motion for summary judgment should state the specific grounds for summary judgment. 1 A motion for summary judgment also must give fair notice of the basis on which summary judgment is sought.2 Defendant’s new Reply is wrought with factual references to evidence which their own motion 1 Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c),(i). 2 Waite v. Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C., 137 S.W.3d 277, 281 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.)(holding when movant only cited rule for no-evidence summary judgment, did not recite traditional standards for summary judgment, and did not attempt to establish that there was no issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, motion did not give fair notice that it sought traditional summary judgment)(Emphasis added). 1 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez evidences that there exist disputed issues of material facts that preclude the grant of summary judgment. 2. In Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary Judgment, Defendant only raises evidentiary issues related to the admissions to urge their Motion for Summary Judgment. In fact, their argument completely ignores the discovery responses provided by the Plaintiff through Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production and instead focuses squarely on the argument that the Plaintiff lacks evidence on the basis that they allege she admitted to Defendant’s propounded admissions. Defendant’s Reply shifts gears and raises new arguments regarding the evidence produced in discovery, evidence Defendant implied was never even produced in their original motion. 3. Defendant’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment simply recites the elements of each of Plaintiff’s cause of actions and does not address the evidence produced by the Plaintiff, instead falsely states Plaintiff has produced no discovery when stating, “Plaintiff has had ample time to conduct discovery but has simply chosen not to do so.” 3 Following this misrepresentation, Defendant simply states Plaintiff has produced no evidence on each of her causes of action. A no-evidence motion for summary judgment cannot be conclusory or generally allege that there is no evidence to support the nonmovant’s claim or defense. 4 A motion that states there is no evidence for “one or more” or “any of” the elements of Plaintiff’s claim is not sufficient. 5 The purpose of the specificity requirement is to provide the other parties with fair notice, providing the nonmovant with adequate information for their opposing motion and defining the issues. 6 3 Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary Judgment; page 3. 4 Timpte Indus. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d at 310; Holloway v. Texas Elec. Util. Constr., Ltd., 282 S.W.3d 207,213 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2009, no pet.). 5 Community Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671, 695-96 (Tex.2017). 6 Timpte Indus., 286 S.W.3d at 311. 2 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez II. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ON THE NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS 4. Plaintiff requests a continuance and motion for leave to allow adequate time for the Plaintiff to file the supplemental affidavits attached to the forgoing Response. In Defendant’s Reply, they state that Plaintiff failed her burden to produce any evidence as to several elements, but the court should give the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure any defects in its summary-judgment evidence identified by the Defendant in its reply. 7 The court may grant a continuance to allow a nonmovant to obtain an affidavit or deposition testimony necessary to support its claim. 8 The timing of Defendant’s Reply, filed on July 6, 2023, does not provide Plaintiff with adequate time to cure defects in her summary judgment evidence 7 days in advance of the current setting, set for submission on July 11, 2023. Under these circumstances, the nonmovant is left to ask the court to state a deadline to cure the defects and a date for the hearing. 9 5. To file late summary-judgment evidence, the Plaintiff must obtain leave of court. 10 The party must obtain a written ruling on its motion for leave to file late summary-judgment evidence. 11 To secure permission to file the late affidavits less than seven days before the hearing, the nonmovant must file a motion for leave to file late summary judgment evidence that establishes (1) good cause and (2) no undue prejudice. 12 Good cause is established by sworn proof that the nonmovant’s failure to timely respond was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was the result of an accident or mistake. 13 The lack of undue prejudice is 7 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f) (party should be given opportunity to cure defects in form of affidavits and attachments). 8 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g) 9 Peerenboom v. HSP Foods, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.—Waco 1995, no writ). 10 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Benchmark Bank. V. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex.1996). 11 Mathis v. RKL Design/Build, 189 S.W.3d 839, 842-43 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 12 Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex.2005). 13 Id. 3 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez established by showing the late response will not unduly delay or otherwise injure the nonmovant. 14 The standard for allowing a late summary judgment response is the same as for withdrawing a deemed admission.15 6. The opinions and statements provided by the Plaintiff Vita Villanueva and her two experts Julio Quirino and Jesse Ramirez are material to the fact and legal issues involved with this case, but to date their depositions have not been noticed or conducted by Defendant. As such, their personal knowledge and opinions have only been introduced through limited capacity in the discovery conducted thus far. The production of these individuals’ affidavits is not intentional or through conscious indifference to the summary judgment process but instead through mistake. Defendant’s Reply highlighted defects in the evidence produced by Plaintiff and these affidavits are produced for purposes of curing those defects. This does not place any undue prejudice on the Defendant as they had ample opportunity to depose Vita Villanueva and Julio Quirino, as they were named in Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. Additionally, if leave of court and a continuance is granted, Defendant will have sufficient time to reply or respond with controverting affidavits if necessary. III. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THAT PRECLUDES THE GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7. In support of this response to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs attach the following summary judgment evidence and incorporate same by reference as if fully set forth herein verbatim: Exhibit C: Affidavit of Plaintiff Vita Villanueva o Exhibit C-1: Defendant’s Denial of Claim Letter Dated Oct. 2, 2020. 14 Id. 15 Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 687-88 (Tex.2002). 4 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez Exhibit D: Affidavit of Julio Quirino Exhibit E: Affidavit of Jesse Ramirez III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 8. The burden is on the Plaintiff to raise a genuine issue of material fact about the elements challenged by the motion for summary judgment. 16 The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the nonmovant. 17 To defeat a no-evidence motion, the Plaintiff “is not required to marshal its proof; its response need only point out evidence that raises a fact issue on the challenged elements.” 18 If the Plaintiff presents more than a scintilla of evidence on the challenged elements, it is entitled to a trial on the merits. 19 9. The Evidence Shows Defendant Breached the Contract: The evidence presented, meets every element of a breach of contract. (1) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid contract. By Defendant’s own acknowledgement in their Motion’s recitation of the facts, the Plaintiff was insured under a policy provided by Defendant. Plaintiff Vita Villanueva stated she has been with Great Lakes Insurance since 2014. 20 (2) Plaintiff performed or tendered performance by paying her monthly premiums for insurance coverage for her property. (3) Defendant breached the contract by failing to abide by the terms of the insurance policy language contained in Defendant’s Exhibit A-1. 10. In Plaintiff’s insurance policy with Defendant, the policy states the Plaintiff’s property is insured against windstorm damage: 16 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); First United Pentecostal Ch. v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex.2017); KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70, 79 (Tex.2015); Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex.2013). 17 Lehrer v. Zwernemann, 14 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); see Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125, 130 (Tex.2018). 18 Saenz v. Southern Un. Gas Co., 999 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1999, pet. denied). 19 Ridgeway 20 See Exhibit C - Affidavit of Plaintiff Vita Villanueva. 5 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez 21 11. The extent of repairs for covered losses includes reasonable repairs, the removal of covered property, as well as consequential loss: 22 12. By the account of the Plaintiff, observed a windstorm on July 25, 2020. 23 She observed water entering her house during the storm and the following days observed ceiling stains 21 See Defendant Exhibit A-1; page 26. 22 Id. 23 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. 6 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez that had never existed on her ceiling before the storm. 24 Julio Quirino of Tectum Consulting, LLC inspected the Plaintiff’s property and found windstorm damages and calculated an estimate for the reasonable repairs necessary to fix the windstorm damages. 25 Julio’s estimate calculated for a full replacement of the dwelling roof, patio roof, and repairs to three interior rooms. 26 It is the professional opinions of both Julio Quirino of Tectum Consulting, LLC and public adjuster Jesse Ramirez that Defendant failed to provide adequate coverage for the damages with no reasonable basis. 27 13. The 4th element of a breach of contract is that the Plaintiff suffered economic damages as a result of Defendant’s breach. Plaintiff has paid her monthly premiums to be provided homeowners insurance. 28 She has been paying her share of the bargain, but without the benefit. Under this contract, she should be provided payment for the full amount of reasonable repairs for the covered damages to her property, but instead she was issued a full denial on her claim.29 Plaintiff should have been paid $33,785.71, less the deductible, because that is what she was owed under her insurance contract. 14. The Evidence Shows Defendant Breached the Duty of Good Faith & Fair Dealing: The Defendant had no reasonable basis for the denial in paying the Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendant should have known this fact. The review of this claim by both Julio Quirino and Jesse Ramirez finds that Defendant’s denial of covered damages in this claim was made with no reasonable basis. 30 Jesse Ramirez is a public adjuster who has adjusted claims for insurers and insureds alike. He is familiar with the Texas Insurance Code, and from his evaluation, there is no 24 Id. 25 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B. 26 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3. 27 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 28 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. 29 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5. 30 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 7 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez basis for denying coverage for damages that clearly stemmed from a covered peril, the windstorm that occurred on July 25, 2020. 31 15. The Plaintiff reported the claim to include interior water leaks. 32 Defendant observed windstorm damages to the property’s roof, a prerequisite to providing coverage for interior water damage from a windstorm, and still denied coverage to the interior of the property. 33 Under the policy, if there is a storm created opening, interior water damage caused by a windstorm is covered. 34 However, the Defendant never investigated the damaged shingle entry point for water for the interior leaks and never even provided an explanation for that. 35 Defendant should have known the possibility of this fact as it is written out in their policy. 16. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated Tex. Ins. Code §§ 541.060(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(7): Defendant asserts that the “Plaintiff’s purported estimate does not establish the alleged damage was caused by a covered cause of loss for which Great Lakes should have paid.” 36 Defendant’s own inspection notes identify the Plaintiff’s property was damaged by a windstorm to the exterior rooftops and interior in their inspection notes. 37 As previously established, damages caused by a windstorm is a covered peril under the policy. 38 Plaintiff’s estimate was prepared by Julio Quirino, and he prepared his estimate to repair all the reasonable and necessary repairs associated with the windstorm. 39 Furthermore, it was his professional opinion and observation that the damages he observed were consistent with damages 31 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 32 See Defendant’s Exhibit A-2 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. 33 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5. 34 See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1. 35 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5. 36 Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; paragraph 8. 37 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5. 38 See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1. 39 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit D. 8 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez from a windstorm event. 40 17. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(1) by misrepresenting to the Plaintiff the full extent of coverage she was allowed under the policy she had with the Defendant. The policy clearly states that her property is insured against windstorm damages and the coverage includes reasonable repairs, property removal, and the consequential loss related to those repairs. 41 Defendant underscoped the full extent of damage to the dwelling’s roof and only provided coverage for one laminated shingle. 42 This does not allow for waste or any reasonable repairs to fix even the underscoped coverage Defendant allowed. There is no practical reality where the Plaintiff can go and obtain one isolated ridge shingle at a store and install that one isolate shingle back onto her roof without affecting the associated area of the roof. 18. By virtue of Tectum Consulting’s estimate, the opinion of Julio Quirino, and the opinion of public adjuster Jesse Ramirez, the Defendant did not provide coverage for all the damages caused by the windstorm and that reasonably should have been covered under the policy. 43 It is the professional opinion of Jesse Ramirez that the Defendant misrepresented material facts about Plaintiff’s claim to the Plaintiff. 44 19. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(2)(A), because Defendant failed to attempt in good faith to resolve Plaintiff’s claim when Defendant’s liability was clear they should have provided coverage for the Plaintiff’s full roof and the interior damages as they had water damage from a storm created opening. Instead of attempting to make a payment on these damages, they denied the Plaintiff’s claim and issued out a full denial on the basis that the Defendant’s 40 Id. 41 See Defendant’s Exhibit A-1. 42 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-4. 43 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 44 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 9 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez minimal coverage fell below the Plaintiff’s insurance deductible. 45 Plaintiff never received any payment from the Defendant on her claim, despite the evidence being reasonably clear that Defendant owed a duty under the policy to provide the Plaintiff with the full extent of coverage she was owed as reflected by Plaintiff’s competing estimate prepared by Tectum Consulting. 46 20. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(7), because Defendant refused to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. As noted previously, Defendant’s inspection notes take no effort to investigate the water source entering the roof of the property to cause the interior water damages that were denied coverage. 47 There is no attempt to enter the property’s attic and observe for water entry that led to the ceiling stains. 48 Public adjuster Jesse Ramirez found that the Defendant unfairly evaluated this claim and ultimately did not conduct a reasonable investigation. 49 21. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(4), because Plaintiff did not receive timely indication of acceptance or rejection, regarding the full and entire claim. The Plaintiff’s full claim was under-evaluated and underscoped by the Defendant and left out significant portions of the Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant violated Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(3), when the Defendant failed to promptly provide to Plaintiff a reasonable explanation for the basis in the policy for the denial of the claim, as they had no reasonable basis in law or fact to deny this claim. This is supported by the fact that Julio Quirino’s estimate found damages far in excess of the Plaintiff’s deductible and Jesse Ramirez found that the Defendant had no reasonable basis for denying coverage for the full roof and interior water damages. 50 45 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. 46 See Plaintiff’s B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 47 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-5. 48 Id. 49 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 50 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 10 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez 22. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated Tex. Ins. Code §§ 542.055, 542.056, and 542.058: Julio Quirino’s inspection revealed windstorm damages to the property that amounted to $33,785.71. 51 These were the damages that he determined were reasonably necessary to repair the damages caused by the windstorm. 52 According to Jesse Ramirez, the extent of observable damages warranted coverage for a full roof replacement as well as inclusion of coverage for the interior rooms due to the compromised condition of the roof. 53 Furthermore, Jesse Ramirez opined that with the information that was available to the Defendant at the end of their initial inspection, they should have had reasonable information to issue payment to the Plaintiff for insurance coverage for what was a covered peril under the policy. 54 23. Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding timely acknowledging Plaintiff’s claim, beginning an investigation of Plaintiff’s claim, and requesting all information reasonably necessary to investigate Plaintiff’s claim, within the statutorily mandated time of receiving notice of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins. Code §542.055. 24. Defendant failed to accept Plaintiff’s full and entire claim within the statutorily mandated time of receiving all necessary information. In contrast to Tectum’s estimate and the opinions of Julio Quirino and Jesse Ramirez, Defendant severely undervalued the Plaintiff’s claim and excluded areas of coverage that should have been allowed under the policy. 55 Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins. Code §542.056. 51 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit D. 52 Id. 53 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 54 Id. and Defendant’s Exhibit A-1. 55 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit B-3, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 11 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez 25. Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding payment of claim without delay. Specifically, it has delayed full payment of Plaintiff’s claim longer than allowed and, to date Plaintiff has not received full payment for the claim. Plaintiff should have been provided coverage for a full roof replacement and interior repairs as required under the insurance policy, but to this day the Defendant has failed to pay these damages it properly owes under the policy. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. Tex. Ins. Code §542.058. 26. The Evidence Shows Defendant Violated the DTPA: The Defendant’s material misrepresentations regarding insurance policy coverage to the Plaintiff, advising of false information regarding the nature of her property’s damages that led to the manipulated and diminished value of coverage offered by the Defendant that fell below her insurance deductible. The coverage decisions made by the Defendant were inaccurate and misleading. 56 Defendant excluded damages on Plaintiff’s property that are clearly covered under that policy; windstorm damages to the entire roof that exposed the interior rooms to water leaks. 57 The misrepresentation of the full scope of damages to Plaintiff’s property was performed to avoid paying the Plaintiff a financial benefit she was owed under the contract for insurance services she had with the Defendant. V. PRAYER Plaintiff requests the Court DENY Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary Judgment. Plaintiff also requests that this Court strike Plaintiff’s deemed admissions. Plaintiff further respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs all other relief to 56 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and Plaintiff’s Exhibit E. 57 Id. 12 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez which they are entitled. Respectfully submitted, MOORE LAW FIRM 4900 North 10th Street, Suite F-3 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone No. (956) 631-0745 Telecopier No. (888) 266-0971 By: /s/ R. Nicholas Moore R. Nicholas Moore State Bar No. 24098134 J. Michael Moore State Bar No. 14349550 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 13 Electronically Filed 7/10/2023 5:21 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Monica Valdez CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this the 10th day of July, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Final Summary Judgment was forwarded to all counsel of record and counsel with a courtesy copy to counsel who have indicated that they will be appearing as counsel of record in these proceedings in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as indicated below: All Counsel in the Related Cases: Valerie Henderson Texas Bar No. 24078655 vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com Kirsten D. Vesel Texas Bar No. 24121183 kvesel@bakerdoneslon.com BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ. P.C. 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 650-9700 Facsimile: (713) 650-9701 /s/ R. Nicholas Moore R. Nicholas Moore 14 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. J. Michael Moore Bar No. 14349550 lit-docket@moore-firm.com Envelope ID: 77373431 Filing Code Description: Answer/Response Filing Description: PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMETN AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS Status as of 7/11/2023 10:27 AM CST Associated Case Party: Vita Villanueva Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status J. MichaelMoore firstpartylit@moore-firm.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Great Lakes Insurance SE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kirsten Vesel kvesel@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT Valerie Henderson vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status VALAERIE HENDERSON cbravo@bakerdonelson.com 7/10/2023 5:21:59 PM SENT