Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you have a special insurance policy that covers damage from a leaky pipe but specifically excludes damage from a hurricane. If water damaged your home, but it was from a burst pipe and not a hurricane, your policy might cover it. However, if the insurance company says the damage was from a 'flood' and your policy excludes floods, they might deny your claim. This court said that 'surface water' (like from heavy rain pooling) is not the same as a 'flood' (like a river overflowing) under the policy's wording, so the insurance company was right to deny the claim based on the policy's specific exclusion.

For Legal Practitioners

This appellate decision affirms summary judgment for the insurer, reinforcing the principle that policy terms are construed according to their plain language. The court's holding that 'surface water' is not synonymous with 'flood' under the policy's exclusion is critical. Practitioners should emphasize the importance of precise policy drafting and be prepared to litigate the plain meaning of terms, especially in coverage disputes involving water damage. Failure to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the interpretation of unambiguous policy language will lead to adverse summary judgment.

For Law Students

This case tests the interpretation of insurance policy exclusions, specifically the distinction between 'surface water' and 'flood.' The court applied the plain meaning rule to the policy language, holding that these terms are not interchangeable. This aligns with broader contract law principles of interpreting unambiguous terms according to their ordinary meaning. Students should note how the court's strict construction of the exclusion, absent ambiguity, led to the denial of coverage and consider how different factual scenarios or policy language might alter this outcome on exam.

Newsroom Summary

An appeals court has sided with an insurance company, ruling that damage from pooled surface water is not covered by a policy that excludes 'flood' damage. The decision clarifies that insurers can deny claims if the specific cause of damage, like surface water, falls under an explicit exclusion, even if it seems similar to a broader excluded event. This impacts policyholders seeking coverage for water-related incidents.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Coday's claims for breach of contract.Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Coday's claims for fraud.Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Coday's claims under the Texas Insurance Code.

Rule Statements

"To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

"A breach of contract claim requires proof of a valid contract, the plaintiff's performance or tender of performance, the defendant's breach, and resulting damages."

"To establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove a material misrepresentation, falsity, scienter, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and injury."

Scenario: You have an insurance policy that covers damage from a burst pipe but excludes damage from a 'flood.' Your basement floods due to heavy rain causing water to pool and seep in, and the insurance company denies your claim, stating it's flood damage. You believe it's just surface water, not a flood.

Your Rights: You have the right to have your insurance claim evaluated based on the specific wording of your policy. If the policy language is clear and unambiguous, the court will likely interpret it according to its plain meaning. In this case, your right to coverage depends on whether 'surface water' is legally considered a 'flood' under your specific policy's terms.

What To Do: Carefully review your insurance policy, paying close attention to definitions and exclusions related to water damage. Gather evidence of the source and nature of the water damage (e.g., photos, expert reports). If your claim is denied, you can appeal the decision with your insurance company, providing evidence that the damage was caused by surface water and not a flood as defined or excluded by your policy. If the dispute continues, you may need to consult with an attorney to understand your options for legal recourse.

Is it legal for my insurance company to deny my claim for water damage if my policy excludes 'flood' damage but the water came from heavy rain pooling on the surface?

It depends. If your insurance policy clearly excludes 'flood' damage and the court interprets 'surface water' (water pooling from rain) as distinct from 'flood' under the policy's plain language, then yes, it is likely legal for them to deny the claim based on that exclusion. However, if the policy is ambiguous or if 'surface water' could reasonably be considered a type of 'flood' under the policy's terms, you might have a basis for appeal.

This ruling is specific to Texas law and how Texas courts interpret insurance policy language. While the principles of contract interpretation are similar across jurisdictions, specific outcomes can vary.

For Insurance Policyholders

Policyholders need to be aware that specific exclusions in their policies are strictly enforced based on the plain meaning of the terms. Damage caused by events like heavy rain pooling (surface water) may not be covered if the policy explicitly excludes 'flood' damage and the terms are not considered synonymous.

For Insurance Companies

This ruling reinforces the ability of insurance companies to rely on clear and unambiguous policy exclusions. It validates their practice of denying claims when the cause of damage falls squarely within a specifically defined exclusion, provided the terms are interpreted according to their plain meaning.

For Attorneys specializing in insurance law

This case serves as a reminder to meticulously analyze policy language and focus on the plain meaning of terms when arguing coverage disputes. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between similar but legally distinct causes of damage as defined within an insurance contract.

Q: What is Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency about?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on January 22, 2026. It involves Miscellaneous/other civil.

Q: What court decided Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency decided?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency was decided on January 22, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

The citation for Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What type of case is Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency is classified as a "Miscellaneous/other civil" case. This describes the nature of the legal dispute at issue.

Q: What is the case name and who are the main parties involved?

The case is Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency. The primary parties are the plaintiffs, Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc., who sought insurance coverage, and the defendants, Wallace Dunn, Tisha Crow, and Kris Crow, who were involved in providing or administering the insurance policy.

Q: What was the core dispute in the Coday v. Dunn case?

The central dispute revolved around an insurance policy's coverage for damage. The plaintiffs claimed damage from 'surface water,' but their insurer denied the claim, citing an exclusion for 'flood' damage, leading to allegations of breach of contract and misrepresentation.

Q: Which court decided the Coday v. Dunn case, and what was its ruling?

The case was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling in favor of the defendants (Dunn and the Crows) and against the plaintiffs (Coday and the Association).

Q: When did the appellate court issue its decision in this insurance dispute?

While the specific date of the appellate court's decision is not provided in the summary, the case reached the appellate court after a trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Q: What type of insurance policy was at the center of this legal dispute?

The case concerned a specific insurance policy that contained an exclusion for 'flood' damage. The plaintiffs sought coverage for damage they described as caused by 'surface water.'

Q: Is Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency published?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency cover?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency covers the following legal topics: Defamation per se, Defamation per quod, Actual malice standard, Tortious interference with contract, Summary judgment standard of review, Prima facie case elements.

Q: What was the ruling in Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency. Key holdings: The court held that the plain language of the insurance policy, which excluded "flood" damage but did not define it, did not equate "surface water" with "flood."; The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the policy's interpretation or the defendants' alleged misrepresentations.; The court determined that the exclusion for "flood" damage was unambiguous and did not cover damage caused solely by surface water accumulation.; The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the term "flood" should be interpreted broadly to include any inundation by water, including surface water.; The court found that the defendants did not breach the insurance contract by denying the claim, as the damage fell under the flood exclusion..

Q: What precedent does Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency set?

Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plain language of the insurance policy, which excluded "flood" damage but did not define it, did not equate "surface water" with "flood." (2) The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the policy's interpretation or the defendants' alleged misrepresentations. (3) The court determined that the exclusion for "flood" damage was unambiguous and did not cover damage caused solely by surface water accumulation. (4) The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the term "flood" should be interpreted broadly to include any inundation by water, including surface water. (5) The court found that the defendants did not breach the insurance contract by denying the claim, as the damage fell under the flood exclusion.

Q: What are the key holdings in Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

1. The court held that the plain language of the insurance policy, which excluded "flood" damage but did not define it, did not equate "surface water" with "flood." 2. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the policy's interpretation or the defendants' alleged misrepresentations. 3. The court determined that the exclusion for "flood" damage was unambiguous and did not cover damage caused solely by surface water accumulation. 4. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the term "flood" should be interpreted broadly to include any inundation by water, including surface water. 5. The court found that the defendants did not breach the insurance contract by denying the claim, as the damage fell under the flood exclusion.

Q: What cases are related to Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

Precedent cases cited or related to Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. 1996); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Rojas, 905 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied).

Q: What was the appellate court's primary holding regarding 'surface water' and 'flood' under the insurance policy?

The appellate court held that 'surface water' is not synonymous with 'flood' as defined by the plain language of the insurance policy. Therefore, damage caused by surface water was not covered under the policy's flood exclusion.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply when reviewing the trial court's decision?

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. This standard requires the court to determine if there was a genuine issue of material fact and if the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.

Q: What did the plaintiffs need to prove to overcome the summary judgment motion?

To overcome the summary judgment, the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding either the interpretation of the insurance policy's terms or the defendants' alleged misrepresentations about the policy's coverage.

Q: How did the court interpret the 'plain language' of the insurance policy?

The court focused on the ordinary meaning of the terms 'surface water' and 'flood.' It concluded that the policy's exclusion for 'flood' did not encompass damage caused by surface water, as these terms have distinct meanings in common usage and insurance contexts.

Q: What were the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants?

The plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, alleging the defendants failed to provide coverage as promised under the policy, and for misrepresentation, suggesting the defendants made false statements about the policy's scope of coverage.

Q: Did the court find any evidence of misrepresentation by the defendants?

No, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' representations. This implies that the evidence presented did not support a claim that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the policy's coverage.

Q: What is the significance of the 'flood exclusion' in this case?

The flood exclusion was critical because it specifically removed coverage for damage caused by floods. The court's interpretation of this exclusion, and its distinction between 'flood' and 'surface water,' was the basis for denying the plaintiffs' claim.

Q: What does it mean for a court to 'affirm' a trial court's decision?

When an appellate court affirms a trial court's decision, it means the appellate court agrees with the lower court's ruling and upholds it. In this case, the appellate court agreed that summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.

Q: What is the burden of proof in a breach of contract claim related to insurance?

In a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff (here, Coday and the Association) generally bears the burden of proving that a contract existed, that the defendant breached it, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. In this case, they failed to show a breach because the damage was excluded.

Q: What are the practical implications of this ruling for insurance policyholders?

This ruling highlights the importance of carefully reading and understanding insurance policy language, particularly exclusions. Policyholders cannot assume that terms like 'surface water' are covered if the policy explicitly excludes 'flood' damage, even if the cause seems similar.

Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of the Coday v. Dunn decision?

Insurance policyholders, especially those in areas prone to water damage, are most affected. The decision reinforces the need for clarity in policy terms and underscores that insurers can deny claims based on specific exclusions if the damage falls within their defined scope.

Q: What advice might an insurance agent or broker take from this case?

Insurance agents and brokers should ensure they accurately explain policy terms and exclusions to clients, avoiding any language that could be misinterpreted. They must be precise when discussing coverage limitations, such as the distinction between different types of water damage.

Q: Could this ruling impact the way insurance policies are written in the future?

This case reinforces the established legal principle that policy language is interpreted according to its plain meaning. It may encourage insurers to be even more explicit in defining terms like 'flood' and 'surface water' to prevent future disputes and litigation.

Q: What is the business impact for the insurance companies involved or similar entities?

For insurance companies, this ruling validates the use of specific exclusions to limit liability. It provides a precedent that supports denying claims for damage that falls under a clearly defined exclusion, potentially saving significant costs on claims.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal history of insurance contract interpretation?

This case aligns with a long-standing tradition in insurance law where courts interpret policy language strictly according to its plain meaning, especially when it comes to exclusions. It follows the principle that ambiguities are construed against the insurer, but here, the court found no ambiguity.

Q: Are there landmark cases that established the principle of interpreting insurance policy exclusions strictly?

Yes, numerous cases have established the principle of interpreting insurance contracts based on their plain language and enforcing exclusions as written, provided they are not ambiguous. This case relies on that established doctrine rather than creating new law.

Q: How has the legal understanding of 'flood' versus 'surface water' evolved in insurance law?

The evolution has generally favored insurers when policy language is clear. Courts have increasingly distinguished between different types of water damage, requiring policyholders to have specific coverage for events like floods, as opposed to more general water intrusion.

Q: What was the docket number in Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency?

The docket number for Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency is 11-25-00247-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Matthew Coday and Oil & Gas Workers Association, Inc. v. Wallace Dunn; Tisha Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance; And Kris Crow, Individually and D/B/A Crow Insurance Agency be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What is 'summary judgment' and why was it granted here?

Summary judgment is a procedural device used to resolve a case without a full trial when there are no genuine disputes over material facts. It was granted here because the court found that, based on the policy's language, the plaintiffs could not prove their claim, even if all their factual allegations were true.

Q: How did the case proceed from the trial court to the appellate court?

The case initially went to a trial court, where the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After the trial court granted this motion, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Appeals, which then reviewed the trial court's ruling.

Q: What is the role of 'material fact' in a summary judgment motion?

A 'material fact' is a fact that could change the outcome of the lawsuit. In summary judgment, the court looks to see if there are any disputed material facts. If there are none, the case can be decided as a matter of law. Here, the court found no dispute over the fact that the damage was surface water, not flood.