Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Proper Notice Must Be Given When Suing Under Section 542A

May 10, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a case regarding ‘Notice” under Texas Insurance Code, section 542A.007(d). It is a 2025 opinion styled, Devindra Investments, Inc. v. Wesco Insurance Company. It is from the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.

Before the Court is Defendant Wesco Insurance Company’s amended Opposed Motion to Limit Plaintiff’s Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees. Pursuant to § 542A.007(d) of the Texas Insurance Code, Defendant moves the Court to preclude Plaintiff Devindra Investments, Inc. from recovering any attorney’s fees incurred after July 25, 2024. The sole issue is raised by Plaintiff’s timely presentation of adequate notice to an independent adjuster retained by a third-party claims administrator on Defendant’s behalf, but not to Defendant directly. After considering the arguments of the parties and applicable law, the Court finds the Motion should be GRANTED IN PART by limitation of Plaintiff’s recovery of attorney’s fees and DENIED IN PART by precluding fees incurred after July 26, 2024.

Chapter 542A of the Texas Insurance Code applies to first party insurance claims made under Texas law and resulting from forces of nature such as hailstorms. That chapter requires that a claimant provide presuit notice to any person from whom the claimant seeks damages, and it establishes various criteria such notice must meet.

Delay In Paying Claim – The Difference Between 541 and 542

May 3, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Slow payment of an insurance claim can create a claim for extra monies under the Texas Insurance Code. An opinion from a 2025, Fifth Circuit case is an important read on this issue. The opinion is styled, Sterling Senechal v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.

This is a summary judgment opinion wherein claims were made for delays in paying the claim under Texas Insurance Code, Sections 541 and 542.

Allstate had eventually paid the claim but Senechal sued because of the slow payment. The Facts of the case can be learned from reading the opinion. The distinctions between the two sections are set forth here.

Homeowners Claims – Vacant Or Unoccupied

April 26, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

A common reason for claim denial is when a home is not being lived in at the time of the loss. The reason for denial will be denied due to an exclusion in most policies excluding coverage for structures that are vacant or unoccupied. A February 2025 opinion from the United States Fifth Circuit discusses this issue. The opinion is styled, Crystal Childers; Bradley Childers v. Allstate Indemnity Company.

This is a summary judgment opinion.

The Childers had coverage on their home through Allstate and later purchased another home and had it insured by a “Landlords Package Policy.” This policy had exclusions for when a structure was vacant or unoccupied for more than 60 consecutive days immediately prior to the loss.

Life Insurance Claims – Tort Or Contract

April 19, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance claim denials will bring up many issues to be discussed, based on the Facts of the case. Here is a January 2025 case that presented an issue the Courts have never seen before. The opinion is styled, Mark Howell and Leslie Howell vs. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company.

This is a case of first impression for the Court. This lawsuit arises out of SFBLIC’s denial of a life insurance claim. Wade Howell applied for a life insurance policy that named his parents, Plaintiffs Mark and Leslie Howell, as the beneficiaries. Pending before the Court are claims of breach of contract and a violation of Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code.

The allegation by SFBLIC in this summary judgment opinion is that Wade made misrepresentations in his claim for life insurance and as a result of the misrepresentations SFBLIC says the policy is void.

Attorney Fees OnClaims Under 542A

April 12, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorney fees are almost always a part of insurance claims. What too many people don’t realize are the requirements for being able to recover those fees. Those requirements may differ depending on the type of insurance claim. Here is a January 2025, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, that deals with attorney fees under Texas Insurance Code, Section 542A..003. The opinion is styled, Betty Hearn v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co.

This is an insurance coverage dispute stemming from hail and wind damage to Hearn’s property. On June 28, 2023, Hearn, through her counsel, sent a notice letter to Allstate of her intent to file suit, which included an amount for “actual damages,” “attorney’s fees to date,” and a total value, “less any amounts paid and any applicable deductible.” The letter states it is intended to serve as notice pursuant to Texas Insurance Code section 542.003A.

Texas Insurance Code section 542A.003 requires “not later than the 61st day before the date a claimant files an action . . . the claimant must give written notice to the person in accordance with this section as a prerequisite to filing the action.” “A court may not award to the claimant any attorney’s fees incurred after the date the defendant files the pleading” proving the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a proper “presuit notice stating the specific amount alleged to be owed by the insurer.”

Hail Damage – When Did It Occur

April 5, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Hail damage claims are a frequent source of litigation. There are many reasons an insurance company will deny a claim. One of those reasons is that the hail damage did not occur while the insurance policy was in effect. This issue is discussed in a January 2025 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The opinion is styled, H5R, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Company a/k/a Nationwide Insurance. This is a summary judgment opinion.

H5R discovered a water leak inside one of its single family homes in February 2021, and immediately reported the loss. Scottsdale denied the claim in a letter dated June 17, 2022, for the stated reason that the policy coverage date was December 18, 2020 through December 18, 2021.

H5R contends the Property was damaged by hail during the insurance policy period – a covered loss event – and that Scottsdale Insurance’s “failure to pay a covered loss is breach of an insurance contract.”

Interpreting An Insurance Policy – Court Rules

March 29, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Interpreting an insurance policy is a cause for many lawsuits. This is illustrated in a January 2025 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The opinion is styled, Andre Huizar v. Benchmark Insurance Company.

On summary judgment, the district court dismissed Huizar’s breach of contract and related extracontractual claims against his insurer, Benchmark. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMED.

In January 2021, Huizar applied for a home insurance policy for 833 Baker Drive in Tomball, Texas (the “Property”) with Benchmark. In his application, Huizar represented that the property was owner-occupied, was built in 1982, was not vacant or unoccupied or for sale or under construction, and that there was no unrepaired damage to the roofs or other structures. He signed the application, acknowledging that the information he provided was correct and that if it was false or misleading the policy would be null and void. Based on the information provided, Benchmark issued the homeowner’s

Hail Damages Claims And Bad Faith Insurance

March 22, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Claiming roof damage is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. A December 2024 opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, discusses what the courts look at in roof damage claims wherein the insurance company claims the damage is pre-existing or caused for reasons other than hail damage and whether that denial is cause for a “bad faith” claim. The style of the opinion is Winterfield United Methodist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company.

The facts and legal history of the case can be gleamed from reading the opinion. This is a summary judgment decision.

Plaintiff argues that under Texas law, an insurer cannot investigate a claim in a manner calculated to construct a pretextual, “outcome oriented” basis to deny the claim. Plaintiff explains several ways that Defendant engaged in such conduct, including: (1) Defendant ordered its engineer to perform a second inspection even though the first inspection identified hail damage; (2) Defendant withheld the engineer report from Plaintiff for several weeks; (3) Defendant retained an engineer to “rubberstamp” its predetermined outcome without first inspecting the property himself even though its independent adjuster had already found covered damages; (4) Defendant intentionally minimized the adjuster’s findings of hail damage; (5) Defendant continued to send out its engineer to reinspect the property until the estimated damages fell below the deductible amount; and (6) Defendant withheld the underwriting file of the property from the independent adjuster and engineer.

Roof Damage – Segregating Damages

March 15, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

Claiming roof damage is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. A December 2024 opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, discusses what the courts look at in roof damage claims wherein the insurance company claims the damage is pre-existing or caused for reasons other than hail damage. The style of the opinion is Winterfield United Methodist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company.

The facts and legal history of the case can be gleamed from reading the opinion. This is a summary judgment decision.

Because an insured can recover only for covered events, the burden of segregating the damage attributable solely to the covered event is a coverage issue for which the insured carries the burden of proof. Under certain circumstances, a plaintiff’s failure to segregate is fatal on summary judgment. An insured may carry its burden by producing evidence demonstrating that the loss came solely from a covered loss or producing evidence that a jury could use to reasonably segregate covered and non-covered losses. The Court then pointed out all the evidence produced by the Plaintiff. For these reasons, the court finds that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence attributing the church’s claimed damage to solely the January 2022 storm to survive summary judgment.

What Can Insurance Companies Do And Not Do

March 8, 2025 | Mark S. Humphreys

The answer to the title of this article is not easy. The Texas Insurance Code is about 300 pages long as of the date of this article with another 500 pages of Index and even more for Supplements. On top of the preceding, rules and statutes governing insurance are found in other books of statutes such as the Penal Code, Family Code, Transportation Code, and others.

Chapter 1651 of the Texas Insurance Code deals with long-term care insurance policies.

Medicare supplement policies are governed in part by Chapter 1652 of the Texas Insurance Code.