Capitol Life Insurance Co. partially prevailed, and partially failed, its effort to overturn unfavorable grants of summary judgment in a recent dispute regarding an annuity policy written by Capitol. The present opinion arose from Capitol's appeal of the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the policyholder ("Newman"), third-party administrator MetLife, and summary judgment on behalf of Capitol's reinsurer, AGL. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded regarding summary judgment on Newman's breach of contract claim, but affirmed summary judgment in favor of AGL and MetLife.
The court reversed summary judgment regarding Newman's breach of contract claim and Capitol's statute of limitations defense, remanding the case for further proceedings on that claim. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a "no-evidence summary judgment" as to Capitol's breach of contract claim against AGL because Capitol did not provide "more than a scintilla of probative evidence" to show that Capitol had performed its obligations under the reinsurance agreement, an element of a breach of contract claim as to which Capitol bore the burden of proof. Likewise, the court upheld the grant of no-evidence summary judgment as to Capitol's contract claim against MetLife. Capitol Life Ins. Co. v. Newman, Case No. 05-16-1476 (Tex. Civ. App. June 21, 2018).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.