In its opinion, the panel said Orange Cup’s affidavits included “conclusions unsupported by any factual detail,” and therefore the trial court did not err by sustaining Mid-Continent’s objections to them. As for the merit of Orange Cup’s claims for insurance code violations, deceptive trade practices and bad faith, specifically, the panel said the convenience store operator failed to sufficiently show that it lost benefits or suffered an independent injury as a result of Mid-Continent’s alleged actions.
Orange Cup also failed to present sufficient evidence showing Mid-Continent failed to meet statutory deadlines in responding to its claims, the panel said, and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact in regard to its fraud claim.
The recent court ruling is a win for Mid-Continent Casualty Co., as it successfully defended itself against the fraud and deceptive trade claims stemming from the gas station leak. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of proper documentation and evidence when it comes to insurance coverage disputes.
