GRANTS Defendants summary judgment on these claims. A. Breach of Contract Notwithstanding that the Court previously determined that “Admiral had a duty to defend, and therefore breached the Policy” in not doing so, the Court nevertheless denied Defendants summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, finding that they failed to prove damages because the breach did not result in “increased legal fees in the Oklahoma Litigation.” Op. at 30-31. Defendants contend that the Court wrongly applied the independent injury test for “extra-contractual” damages, applicable under some sections of the Texas Insurance Code, to their breach of contract claim. Defendants are correct. See Trammell Crow Residential Co. v. Va. Sur. Co., 643 F.Supp.2d 844, 856-57 (N.D.Tex.2008) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (<HOLDING>). Thus, rather than show that they had suffered
holding that because the insurer had a duty to defend it was beyond peradventure that it breached the insurance policy in not doing so thereby causing defendant to incur unnecessary legal expenses holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  insurance policy