Articles Posted in Hail Claims

Most insurance lawyers will attempt to keep any case they are involved with, out of Federal Court. One way of doing this is to sue the local adjuster who handled the claim. The Laredo Division, of the Southern District was inclined to agree with that method except the problem was showing that the adjuster the insured sued, did anything wrong. The style of the case is, Maria Rudolph v. Nationwide General Insurance Company, et al.

This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of hail and storm damage to Rudolph’s property. Nationwide is an out of state insurer but adjuster Catherine Brown is the adjuster and a Texas resident. Brown’s Texas residency defeats the diversity jurisdiction to stay out of Federal Court. Rudolph filed a motion to remand.

The lawsuit was filed in State Court and Nationwide removed the case to Federal Court saying that Brown was fraudulently sued in order to defeat the diversity requirements of Federal Court removal.

Lawyers who handle hail claims need to ready a McAllen Division opinion from the Southern District of Texas. The case is styled, Mirosalva Cantu v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.

Cantu filed suit in State Court and Allstate timely removed the case to Federal Court arguing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Cantu filed a motion to remand stating that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. The Court denied the motion.

The removing party bears the burden of establishing whether federal jurisdiction exists, and the Court must resolve all doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper in favor of remand. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 unless the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Generally, “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” However, when the state practice does not permit a demand for a specific sum, removal is proper if the removing party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in ontroversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant can satisfy this burden by (1) showing it is “apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000” or (2) setting forth “summary judgment-type evidence of facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount.”

Lawyers handling hail damage claims will tell you to immediately check for damage after a hail storm and immediately report any damage to your insurance company. The reasons for doing this are illustrated in an opinion from the U.S. District Court, Dallas Division. The style of the case is, Hamilton Properties v. American Insurance Company.

This case arises out of a dispute regarding an insurance company’s decision to disclaim coverage and deny its customer’s claim for property damage following a hailstorm. Plaintiffs are suing for:

(1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (3) violations of the Texas Insurance Code; (4) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) misrepresentation; and (7) common law fraud by misrepresentation. Defendant The American Insurance Company (“AIC”) has moved for summary judgment with respect to all of these claims. This Court granted the motion.

Lawyers who handle hail claims know that the quicker a claim is made, the better. Communication with the insurance company is also important. Both these points are made in Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division opinion styled, Juan Sanchez Fregoso, et al v. State Farm Lloyds, et al.

In this case, the court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise from damage sustained to their property as a result of a hailstorm event occurring in March / April 2012. The property is insured under a State Farm policy providing replacement cost benefits. Shortly after the storm, Plaintiffs reported an insurance claim to State Farm for the damages sustained to their property. Thereafter, State Farm inspected the property on May 6, 2012, estimating the loss to the property to be $6,910.44. On that same day, State Farm issued to Plaintiffs an actual cash value payment of $3,160.27, the amount remaining after deducting the recoverable depreciation ($1,796.17), and the deductible ($1,954), from the replacement cost value ($6,910.44).

Lawyers handling hail damage claims should read this Northern District, San Angelo Division opinion. It is styled, April Munoz v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, et al.

This is a homeowners hail damage claim filed by April against Safeco and the adjuster assigned to handle the claim. Munoz sued for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Insurance Code, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

This is a summary judgment action filed by Safeco which was granted by the court.