The Court explained that the insurer had filed both a traditional summary judgment motion and a no evidence summary judgment motion that argued 1) the insured had not satisfied conditions precedent to coverage, 2) the policy did not apply to damages caused by the alleged occurrence, and 3) the insured had no evidence of breach of contract, causation and/or damages; but in its appeal, challenging the summary judgment granted on unspecified grounds, the insured had failed to address the no evidence summary judgment motion as a possible basis for the judgment.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login