Hail Claims

Property Damage And Suing The Adjuster

December 20, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance law attorneys in Graford and Garner areas of Parker County need to keep up with court rulings concerning insurance issues. A recent case from a U.S. District Court, San Antonio Division is a good read. The style of the case is Spar Enterprises, LP v The Cincinnati Insurance Company and Elizabeth Ortiz.

Spar filed this case in State District Court and it was removed to Federal District Court based on Cincinnati’s allegation that Ortiz was not a proper party for defeating Federal jurisdiction.

Spar suffered storm damage and filed a claim with Cincinnati. Cincinnati assigned Ortiz to adjust the claim.

Hail Damage Claim And Adjusters

December 1, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers handling hail damage claims need to ready an opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. It is styled, Dianne Leidy, et al v. Alterra America Insurance Company, et al.

Leidy sued Alterra and the adjusters assigned to her claim for hail damage. Leidy alleged her property was damaged during a hail storm on August 16, 2013. Leidy alleged she noticed the damage right after the storm and contacted Alterra by phone. Alterra assigned independent adjusters to adjust the claim. Leidy alleged the adjusters failed to conduct a reasonable and adequate investigation, which resulted in the improper denial of Leidy’s claim. The lawsuit was filed in State Court. Alterra removed the lawsuit to Federal Court asserting that the adjusters had been improperly named as defendants in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Leidy then filed a motion to remand the case back to State Court.

In response to Leidys’ Motion to Remand, Alterra concedes that independent insurance adjusters can be liable for violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Alterra argues, however, that Leidy failed to allege an adequate factual basis for imposing such liability on the adjusters, Colley or Voelkner in this case. The adequacy of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint is evaluated, for purposes of the improper joinder analysis, under the “fair notice” pleading standard in Texas courts.

Two Hail Storms – Two Different Insurance Companies

November 28, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Layers who handle hail damage claims will frequently run into the situation where an adjuster admits there is hail damage on a roof but that the damage is old or there is old damage and new damage to the roof. The question becomes, what is the best course of action in getting a full recovery. The answer is to file claims / sue both insurance carriers. The U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division had this issue in a recent case. The style of the case is, Evridges, Inc. v. The Travelers LLoyds Insurance Company.

In this case, Evridges filed suit against Travelers for hail damage to its property. When evidence that some of the damage was from another storm when another insurance company and policy were in force, Evridges sought to have Travelers added to the lawsuit. This insurer is Landmark American Insurance Company.

Travelers opposed the joining of Landmark, arguing to the court that the joinder was improper under Federal Rule 20(a) because the claims against Landmark do not arise from the same transactions or occurrences as the claims against asserted against Travelers, and since the claims against Landmark do not present common questions of law or fact as the claim against Travelers, that the joinder is improper.

Suing The Insurance Adjuster

November 24, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys handling hail damage insurance claims need to read this opinion from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The case is styled, Monclat Hospitality, LLC vs Landmark American Insurance Company.

This case was filed in State District Court in Tarrant County and then removed by Landmark to Federal Court base on there being a lack of diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Insurance companies always want to fight insurance disputes in Federal Court because matters are more in their favor in Federal Court. Monclat had attempted to prevent the removal by suing the adjuster and then trying to convince the Court why suing the adjuster was proper in this case.

Monclat filed this lawsuit to recover benefits from Landmark under a policy issued by Landmark. Monclat alleged that it had suffered damages due to wind and hail.

Suing An Insurance Company And Trying To Stay Out Of Federal Court

November 22, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most Palo Pinto insurance lawyers already know that it helps their clients to be able to stay out of Federal Court on insurance disputes. They are many points that need to be kept in mind. A few of those are discussed in a U.S. Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division opinion. It is styled, Jose Villareal v. State Farm Lloyds.

Villareal filed his lawsuit in state court, asserting various insurance related causes of action for damages resulting from a wind or hail storm. State Farm removed the case to Federal Court asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Villareal countered that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, thus the court lacks jurisdiction.

A court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 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. Here, however, the state practice does not permit a demand for a specific sum. State Farm can show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by

Hail Claims And Appraisal

November 14, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Forth Worth lawyers handling hail damage claims need to read a recent opinion from the Amarillo Court of Appeals. The case is styled, In Re GuideOne National Insurance Company.

The case involves two insurance claims: one for fire damage and another for wind or hail damage to property. The insurer is GuideOne who sought appraisal in this case. A lawsuit had been filed and the property owners requested that the Court not allow the appraisal. This request was sought long after the law suit had been filed and the property owners had incurred substantial costs. The Court denied the appraisal request and this mandamus action followed. This Court upheld the trial Court decision.

Appraisal clauses provide a means to resolve disputes about the amount of loss for a covered claim. As the Texas Supreme Court has explained: “In every property damage claim, someone must determine the ‘amount of loss,’ as that is what the insurer must pay. An appraisal clause ‘binds the parties to have the extent or amount of the loss determined in a particular way.'”

Promptly Reporting Hail Damage

October 27, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys tell their clients to report all claims immediately. A 2015, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case is a good illustration of why. The opinion is styled, Carlos Alaniz v. Sirius International Insurance Corporation.

This is a summary judgment case granted in favor of Sirius.

Alaniz owns four rental properties. Each property contains four apartment units.

Hail Claims And Proper Pleadings

October 25, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie attorneys handling hail damage claims will find this case helpful in their law practice. It is a 2015, U.S. Eastern District, Sherman Division opinion. The style of the case is, Calvary United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, Donny Brown, and George Ben Hodges.

This case arises out of a hail damage claim filed by Calvary. Church Mutual insured the property and hired Brown and Hodges to adjust the hail damage loss. Brown and Hodges concluded the amount of the loss was $17,285.38. Calvary hired their own adjuster who concluded the total damage was $964,124.98.

Calvary filed this lawsuit in State Court and Church Mutual had the case removed to Federal Court claiming that Brown and Hodges had been improperly joined in order to defeat Federal Court jurisdiction in the matter.

Properly Suing An Insurance Adjuster

October 13, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lake Worth insurance lawyers know that one way of keeping out of Federal court, which is where insurance companies prefer to litigate, and staying in State court is to be able to state a legal cause of action against an insurance adjuster. This was successfully done in a recent U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The style of the case is, Joyce Birch v. Stillwater Insurance Company and Jimmie Pospisil.

This law suit arises out of damage caused to Birch’s home during a hailstorm. Birch submitted a claim to Stillwater for roof and water damage that her home sustained during the storm. The adjuster was Pospisil.

Birch sued Stillwater and Pospisil alleging Pospisil improperly adjusted the claim by failing to include many of her damages, disallowing funds to cover repair and restoration expenses, and reducing the number of shingles reported as damaged. That Pospisil’s failure to properly adjust the claim resulted in a failure to pay the full proceeds of Birch’s insurance policy and adequately settle the claim. She then sued for violations of the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.

Hail Damage Claims And Removal To Federal Court

September 24, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers handling hail damage claims need to read this U.S. District Court, Northern District, Dallas Division ruling. It is styled, Angela Glidewell v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, et al.

This case arises from the alleged mishandling of Glidewell’s insurance claim for damage to her home caused by a hailstorm. The case was filed in County Court, then removed to Federal Court based on Safeco’s allegation that Glidewell improperly joined the adjuster, Davis, to defeat diversity jurisdiction.

Glidewell alleges that Davis improperly adjusted the claim on the damaged property by conducting a “substandard investigation and inspection.” Davis allegedly failed to report all of the damage he observed during the inspection and “undervalued the damages.” Glidewell further alleges that Davis’s misrepresentations led Safeco to underpay on the insurance claim. In sum, Glidewell asserts that “Safeco and Davis performed an outcome-oriented investigation, . . . resulting in a biased, unfair, and inequitable evaluation” of Glidewell’s property losses.