full amount stated in the Proof of Loss. Fuller contends the offer to settle was not for the entire breach of contract claim; rather, it was merely an offer to settle the undisputed portion of the coverage claim, i.e., the plumbing damage. As to the sworn statement and check, Fuller argues these documents merely raise a fact issue and, therefore, mandamus is inappropriate. Thus, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must W.2d 665, 673 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no writ) (rejecting insurer’s argument that proof of loss formed contract between insurer and insured and prevented insured from taking inconsistent position between “contract” and later assertions); Tompkins v. Southern Lloyds Ins. Co., 515 S.W.2d 395, 396 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). It follows, therefore, that mere mistakes or
holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss holding that the insured could not maintain a lawsuit for additional federal benefits because he had not submitted a sworn proof of loss holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa