Hail Claims

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.

Statutes Of Limitations

September 17, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys know about limitations. As a reminder, a 2015 case from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, is worth reading. It is styled, Charles Van Tassel v. State Farm Lloyds, et al. Their are a number of issues in this case but this focus will be on the limitations imposed contractually by State Farm.

In this case, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of limitations. The Court stated that the party asserting an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations or estoppel, bears the burden of proof on it.

In Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Section 16.051, the statute of limitations for a breach of insurance contract action is four years from the day the cause of action accrues. Under the “legal injury rule,” a cause of action accrues when a wrongful act causes the legal injury, even if the injury is not discovered until later.

Homeowners Claims And Limitations

September 8, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers need to look at the insurance policy first, when evaluating a claim. And one of the first things to look for in the policy is limitations on the dates when a claim must be filed.

The Galveston Division of U.S. District Court issued an opinion in 2015 dealing with a one year limitation in a policy. The style of the case is, Richard Batie and Connie Batie v. Southern Farm Bureau Property and Casualty Co.

This is a case wherein Southern Farm filed a motion for summary judgment based on limitations. The Batie’s home was damaged in flood waters during Hurricane Ike. Southern Farm sent out an adjuster and determined the Batie’s were owed $12,000. The Batie’s the hired a law firm which sent out a Proof of Loss (POL) for an additional $34,267.98, dated February 26, 2009. Southern Farm sent a letter dated April 9, 2009, denying the supplemental claim. On May 27, 2009, the law firm sent another letter seeking an additional $56,407.14, which was denied in a letter dated July 14, 2009. Then, the law firm sent another letter dated July 28, 2009, seeking policy limits of $349,000.00. The was rejected on August 4, 2009, by Southern Farm. On August 4, 2010, the Batie’s sued Southern Farm.

Hail Claims And Statute Of Limitations

August 16, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers need to have a clear understanding how the statute of limitations is calculated in a hail damage claim. A U.S. District Court case from The Southern District, McAllen Division is necessary reading. It is styled, Hector Chapa, et al v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, et al.

This is a summary judgement case, wherein Allstate filed the motion for summary judgment based on among other things, the statute of limitations.

The following facts are undisputed. On March 29, 2012, a wind and hail storm struck causing significant damage to Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs immediately filed a claim with Allstate on March 30, 201. On April 9, 2012, an adjuster from Allstate inspected the claim and determined the replacement cost value for the hailstorm damage amounted to $24,713.17. To pay the claim, Allstate made an initial cash value payment to Plaintiffs on April 10, 2012, which is the date they assert the claim was settled in accordance with the policy, and provided a recoverable depreciation payment when the repairs were completed on June 22, 2012. Allstate closed the claim on June 22, 2012 and had no further communication with Plaintiffs for almost two years.