In Beacon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 86 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.) the underlying controversy stemmed from Beacon's treatment of its insureds' claims for roof repairs. Beacon took the position that its insurance policy did not require it to pay for repairs or replacement of roofing layers damaged by excluded perils, such as wear and tear, but only for roof damage caused by covered perils, such as hail. Id. As a result, Beacon's position was that it was required to replace only one layer of roofing. Id. The Texas Department of Insurance informed Beacon in a letter that it was required to remove sufficient layers to obtain a nailable surface, i.e., a surface to which a new roof may adequately be affixed. Id. at 264-65. Based on what Beacon claimed were TDI's announced intentions, Beacon sued TDI seeking declaratory relief regarding its contract rights and obligations under its insurance policy. Id. at 265. The trial court granted TDI's plea to the jurisdiction. Id. The Austin court affirmed, noting Beacon's claims concerned abstract insurance contracts and hypothetical sets of facts. Id. at 267. The Austin court further noted that Beacon's claims required determination of several factual matters which had not been sufficiently developed. Id. at 268.