The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to an insurer and its adjuster in a dispute over coverage for a house fire.
John Medina v. Aventus Insurance Company, Wellington Claims Service, LLC, and Kim Pineau (No. 13-25-00469-CV; August 27, 2026) arose from a 2020 house fire in Corpus Christi. Plaintiff filed a claim with his carrier, Aventus. Wellington and its employee Pineau administered the claim. In February 2021, Plaintiff was indicted for arson, but the charge was dismissed in 2023. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the insurer, asserting contractual and extracontractual claims. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that to avoid paying the claim, Defendants “used a series of pretenses and cons and ruses to falsely infer that” he had something to do with the fire. Plaintiff sought $300,000 in actual damages, exemplary treble damages, and attorney’s fees. Defendants filed a traditional MSJ based on limitations and failure to comply with the policy. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Fonseca, the court of appeals affirmed. First, the court addressed Plaintiff’s argument that his contractual claims were not barred by limitations. The policy provided that suit had to be brought within two years and a day of the accrual date. The policy further required compliance with the policy before filing suit, either two years after the insurer accepted or rejected the claim or three years after the date of loss. The court concluded that the policy was enforceable, and that Plaintiff filed suit more than three years after the date of loss. His contractual claims were barred. As to his non-contractual claims for violations of the Insurance Code and DTPA, the court observed that Plaintiff based his claim on Defendants’ insistence that he submit to an examination under oath, which he refused to do. The evidence showed that the dispute over the EUO, which occurred in 2021, blew up well over two years before suit was filed. Consequently, Plaintiff’s non-contractual claims were likewise barred by limitations. The court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Defendants.
