Articles Posted in Hail Claims

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.

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.

When suing an insurance company, the pleading of a lawsuit have to be proper or the case gets thrown out of court. An example of an insurance company trying to do this is found in a 2015 case from the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. It is styled, Garza v. Scottsdale Insurance Company,et al.

This is an insurance coverage dispute arising from hail storm damage to Garza’s home. Scottsdale removed the case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, with its allegation that the non- diverse claims adjusters, Wardlaw Claims Service, L.L.P. and Michael Clark (jointly Adjusters), were improperly joined. The Court granted the motion of Garza to remand from the Federal Court to the State Court, ruling that in this case the proper pleading standard was met.

Scottsdale’s argument is that Garza has not satisfied pleading rules because, while federal courts often apply Texas “fair notice” pleading rules in removal decisions, Texas pleading rules are no longer as liberal as they once were. Scottsdale refers to newly adopted Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which provides for dismissal “on the grounds that [the cause of action] has no basis in law or fact.”

Duncanville insurance attorneys need to know how the courts looks at the appraisal provisions in an insurance policy. This issue came up in a recent Amarillo Court of Appeals opinion styled, Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Brittni Sampley.

Farm Bureau insured Sampley’s vehicle under a Texas personal automobile policy. The vehicle suffered hail damage and, when the parties disagreed over the cost of repairs, Sampley invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. It requires each party to select a “competent appraiser.” Each party selected an appraiser. After being notified of Sampley’s choice of Robert Batt as her appraiser, Farm Bureau sent her a letter advising her choice was “unacceptable as Mr. Batt is an employee of Bernard’s Advanced Collision, the body shop who repaired your vehicle. Texas law not only requires appraisers to be competent, but also disinterested in the outcome of the appraisal process.” The letter asked Sampley to “inform us once you have selected a disinterested appraiser.” When Sampley declined to change appraisers, Farm Bureau filed suit asking the trial court to remove Batt as appraiser. The parties stipulated Batt “is not disinterested as to the appraisal of the loss at issue because he is employed by Bernard’s Advanced Collision and that company will be paid from the results of the appraisal.”

Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. The court issued a further order stating in part that it “sees no requirement that an appraiser in this appraisal process must be both competent and disinterested and will not impose such a requirement.”

Dallas insurance lawyers who handle roof damage claims will want to ready this “Order” from a Fort Worth Federal Court. The style of the case is, Living Word Teaching Center v. Robert Morris Adams, Jr. and Allstate Insurance Company.

Living Word, a church, secured an insurance policy from Allstate covering its 5,000 square foot church. Living Word later built a large arena next to the church and sought additional coverage for the arena from Allstate. In December 2013, the arena suffered a collapse and was damaged. When Living Word filed an insurance claim with Allstate for the damage suffered, Allstate advised Living Word that the arena was not listed on the policy and therefore, was not covered.

Living Word brought the following claims against Defendants: (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Allstate insurance agent, Adams; (2) negligent misrepresentation against Adams; (3) negligence/negligent procurement against Adams; and (4) agency and vicarious liability against Adams and Allstate.

Parker County lawyers who handle hail storm claims should keep up legislation dealing with the topic. The Insurance Journal published an article that should be read. The title of the article is, Bills Aimed At Property Claims Litigation Expected In Texas Legislative Session. Here is what the article says.

Texas lawmakers are expected to file legislation this year aimed at stemming the tide of property claims litigation in the wake of catastrophic weather events, such as hailstorms.

Proponents of such legislation would like to see a measure that limits the time in which claims over property losses may be filed, similar to the limitations put in place for the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association after it was inundated with claims-related lawsuits following Hurricane Ike.