Maida v. Fire Insurance Exchange

OPINION

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice.

In three points, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by fading to reinstate his case, and violated his rights to a fair trial and due process. We reverse.

I. FACTS

Appellant Vincent Maida purchased an insurance policy through appellee Fire Insurance Exchange (Exchange) for coverage of personal property. After a theft during a move, Maida claimed $27,695 alleging either loss, theft, or other damage to his personal property. Exchange and Maida failed to settle the claim, and on December 26, 1996, Maida filed suit claiming that Exchange had…