Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-17-00251-CV
Juan ALVAREZ,
Appellant
v.
STATE FARM LLOYDS,
Appellee
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CI08926
Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 10, 2018
AFFIRMED
Appellant Juan Alvarez appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor
of appellee State Farm Lloyds with regard to Alvarez’s Texas Insurance Code and common law
bad faith claims. On appeal, Alvarez contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
in favor of State Farm because this court’s decision in Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d
257 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied), in which we held an insurer’s payment of an
appraisal award entitles the insurer to summary judgment on an insured’s contractual and extra-
contractual claims, is no longer controlling in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in USAA
04-17-00251-CV
Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 672, 2017 WL 1311752 (Tex. Apr. 7, 2017). We
recently addressed this same issue in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 04-17-00252-CV, 2017 WL
5162315 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 8, 2017, pet. filed) (mem. op.). Based on our analysis
and holding in Ortiz, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in this case. 1
BACKGROUND
Alvarez suffered property damage as a result of a 2014 wind and hailstorm. Alvarez’s
property was covered by an insurance policy issued by State Farm. After Alvarez submitted a
claim, State Farm determined the property damage alleged by Alvarez fell below the insurance
policy’s deductible. Thus, State Farm made no payment to Alvarez. After receiving a letter from
Alvarez’s attorney, State Farm conducted a second investigation. As a result of this investigation,
State Farm determined the property damages suffered by Alvarez exceeded his deductible and it
paid Alvarez $832.57. Alvarez, believing his claim was still undervalued, sued State Farm,
seeking damages for wrongful denial and underpayment of his claim. Thereafter, State Farm
invoked the appraisal clause in Alvarez’s policy. Through the appraisal process, it was determined
that Alvarez suffered property damage in the amount of $14,377.14 — more than either of the two
original damage estimates. After applying the deductible, prior payment, and depreciation, State
Farm paid Alvarez $9,676.62.
In response to Alvarez’s pending lawsuit, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing it was entitled to a take-nothing summary judgment on all of Alvarez’s claims based on
this court’s decision in Garcia. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary
1
In the appellant’s brief in Ortiz, appellate counsel for Ortiz admits the legal arguments in Ortiz, this appeal, and
Lazos v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 04-17-00286-CV “are identical.” The appellants in these three appeals are represented
by the same appellate counsel.
-2-
04-17-00251-CV
judgment, rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of State Farm. Alvarez timely filed a notice
of appeal.
ANALYSIS
As set out in the introduction, Alvarez contends this court must reconsider its Garcia
decision in light of the supreme court’s decision in Menchaca. However, in Ortiz, this court held
Menchaca did not abrogate Garcia. See 2017 WL 5162315, at *1. In Ortiz, we recognized that
under our decision in Garcia, an insurer’s payment of an appraisal award entitles the insurer to
summary judgment on an insured’s contractual and extra-contractual claims. Id. at *1–2 (citing
Garcia, 514 S.W.3d at 264–65, 276–79). In response to the appellant’s argument that he should
be allowed to proceed with his claims against State Farm based on the Menchaca decision, we
analyzed Menchaca to determine whether it required us to revisit Garcia. After conducting the
analysis, we held Menchaca did not invalidate our decision in Garcia for two reasons. Id. at *2–
*3. First, Menchaca did not involve the payment of an appraisal award, and therefore, it was
distinguishable. Id. Second, there was nothing in the “five distinct but interrelated rules that
govern the relationship between contractual and extra-contractual claims in the insurance context”
that required us to revisit Garcia or reverse the summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Id. at
*2–*3 (quoting Menchaca, 2017 WL 1311752, at *4). Here, we hold Ortiz, which held Menchaca
does not alter our prior decision in Garcia, controls the outcome of this appeal, mandating that we
overrule Alvarez’s sole appellate issue. See id.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we hold that because State Farm paid the appraisal award in this case, and
Alvarez has failed to assert any ground for setting aside the appraisal award or present evidence of
an act so extreme that it caused him injury independent of his claim under the policy, we hold
-3-
04-17-00251-CV
summary judgment was properly granted in favor of State Farm. See Garcia, 514 S.W.3d at 265,
278–79.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-4-
Juan Alvarez v. State Farm Lloyds
Combined Opinion