Articles Posted in Hail Claims

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.”

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.

Here is a 2024 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, that deals with an important procedural in hail damage claims.  The opinion is styled, Lotus Sky, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company and Constitution Insurance Company.

This case arises from a hail damage insurance claim.  Lotus Sky sued Lexington for breach of contract and various violations of the Texas Insurance Code.  In response Lexington filed a Verified Plea as a Motion to Abate.

Accordingly, because this lawsuit is based on an insurance claim arising from alleged wind and hail damage, this lawsuit triggers compliance with Section 542A.003 of the Texas Insurance Code.  Relevant to the Motion before the Court, Lotus Sky was required to provide presuit notice to Lexington at least 60

For Insurance Lawyers handling claims caused by “Mother Nature” it is important to understand Texas Insurance Code, Section 542A.  This is a specific section for claims related to hail damage, tornados, hurricane’s, etc.  As it relates to attorney fees on this type of claim the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued an opinion in June 2024, that needs to be read and understood.  The opinion is styled, Carole Baker v. American Economy Insurance Company.

Insurance lawyers who handle claims being denied are usually asked whether not their attorney fees can be recovered.  The answer is usually a “Yes” but their are requirements to be met in order to recover those attorney fees.  One of those requirements include giving a pre-suit notice letter in proper form.

In cases where the loss has resulted from an act of nature such as hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, freezes, etc. there is a further loop that must be followed involving the timing of the pre-suit notice letter.

Here is a 2023, opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, that is worth reading.  It is styled, Curt Adkisson v. Safeco Insurance Company Of Indiana.