U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2015

United Neurology, P.A. v. Hartford Lloyd's Insurance

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 11, 2015 · Jolly, Jones, Mills, Per Curiam

624 F. App'x 225

Counsel

Wayne D. Collins, Attorney, Collins O’Neal & Swofford, P.L.L.C., League City, TX, Robert Dale Green, Hunter Milam Klein, Green Trial Law, Joseph Todd Trombley, Trombley Law Firm, Houston, .TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Martin R. Sadler, Esq., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision. The 9 that cite it most often are listed here.

Candelaria Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds and Sylvia Garza (Tex. App. 2016)
Randall v. State Farm Lloyds (District Court, W.D. Texas 2024)
Armstrong v. State Farm Lloyds (District Court, N.D. Texas 2023)
Caploc LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe Limited (District Court, N.D. Texas 2021)
Barbara Technologies Corporation v. State Farm Lloyds (Tex. 2019)
Nova Casualty Company LTD v. Cattle Town Feeders LTD (District Court, N.D. Texas 2019)
Lon Smith & Associates, Inc. and A-1 Systems, Inc., D/B/A Lon Smith Roofing and Construction v. Joe Key and Stacci Key (Tex. App. 2017)
National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hurst (Tex. App. 2017)
Candelaria Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds and Sylvia Garza (Tex. App. 2016)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM: **

The court has carefully considered all of the issues raised in this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, .we find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s comprehensive opinion. In particular, there is insufficient *226 evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether the appraisal panel exceeded its authority by improperly allocating damages to “mitigation” rather than to the actual pre-existing condition of the properties. TMM Investments, Ltd. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 466, 474-75 (5th Cir. 2013). The court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.