Cases

A magistrate of the Northern District of Texas recommended that the district court rule upon cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of the insured in an airline’s suit for business interruption losses against an excess insurer, holding that the term “but for” means “except for” or “if it were not for” as a matter of law; that the record did not present a bona fide dispute precluding Chapter 541 claims, particularly where the Fifth Circuit had already disposed of the insurer’s recycled arguments upon review of a prior motion for summary judgment in the case; but that the insured had not yet established as a matter of law that the insurer violated the Prompt Payment of Claims Act.