claims for the costs of his defense in the Travelers lawsuit, then Great American’s alleged misrepresentations as to coverage and delays in accepting or denying coverage would not have caused Primo to incur the costs of his defense. See State Farm Lloyds v. Page, 315 S.W.3d 525, 532 (Tex.2010) (“When the issue of coverage is resolved in the insurer’s favor, extra-contrac tual claims do not survive.”). Similarly, although the Prompt Payment of Claims Act is intended to expedite rejection of a claim as well as acceptance, liability for a violation is imposed on “an insurer that is liable for a claim under an insurance policy.” Tex. Ins.Code Ann. § 542.060(a) (West 2009) (emphasis added); see also Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 177 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.2005) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>). A claim for breach of contract based on Great
holding also that the ordinance failed to provide for prompt judicial review holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage holding that carmark act preempted state law claims including those for liability for payment of claims holding lack of coverage negates liability for violating requirements for prompt payment of claims