Home Owners Policies

Homeowner’s Claim And Damage Segregation

November 2, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a 2024 opinion from the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, that deals with segregating damages in a homeowners claim. The opinion is styled, David Espinoza v. State Farm Lloyds.

Espinoza had a State Farm homeowners policy in force when a storm caused damage to his home. The claim was partially paid but State Farm but denied as to the full claim with State Farm alleging some of the damages were caused by matters not covered by the policy. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff being unable to segregate the covered damages from the uncovered damages.

For an insurance company to be liable for a breach of its duty to satisfy a claim presented by its insured, the insured must prove that its claim falls within the insuring agreement of the policy.

Homeowners Claim Where Insurance Company Says It’s Arson

October 19, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a 2024 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, wherein the insurance company, State Farm Lloyd’s, is refusing to pay the claim because State Farm believes the insured cause the fire on purpose in an effort to collect insurance monies. The opinion is styled, Raynelle King v. State Farm Lloyds.

On November 18, 2018, a late-night fire broke out in King’s home, and King filed a claim with State Farm. Arson investigators later found gasoline residue in debris samples from the room where the fire started. King was apparently in considerable financial distress at the time. As a result, State Farm denied King’s claim alleging that she had set fire to her own home. King sued, arguing that State Farm wrongfully denied her claim. State Farm has now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. State Farm asks the Court to find that King committed arson and therefore cannot recover under the policy. After careful review, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact, and State Farm is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court, therefore, DENIES the Motion.

On the night of November 18, 2018, Plaintiff King’s house caught fire, which caused extensive damage. At the time, King held a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm that covered fire loss, among other things. King submitted a claim for damages under her policy, which State Farm denied. King sued State Farm for failing to pay out her insurance policy. She asserts various causes of action under

Statute Of Limitations On First Party Insurance Claims

October 12, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

It is important to understand the time frame under which lawsuits must be filed. As part of that, reading the insurance policy is vital. A 2024 opinion from the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division, discusses limitation periods written into insurance policies. The opinion is styled, Antonio Caballero v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company .

This case was decided on the summary judgment motion filed by Allstate.

This matter arises from an insurance claim. The Plaintiff alleges hail storm property damage in excess of $20o,000. The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant on December 13, 2018. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s claim on October 11, 2019. The Plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court on August 21, 2023, asserting: violations of the Texas Insurance Code and breach of contract among other causes of action.

Water Damage Claims

August 10, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers handling water damage claims under homeowners policies need to dread this 2024 opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. It is styled, Ghassan Abulehieh v. State Farm Lloyds.

This is a water damage claim under a homeowners policy wherein the insureds assert a plumbing leak in a master bathroom resulted in water damage and mold growth to adjoining areas of the house. The facts of the case can be gleamed from reading the facts in the opinion.

Here is the reasoning the Court used to deny State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.

Homeowners Insurance And Vacancy Exclusion

June 1, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

A vacancy exclusion is common in most policies insuring structures unless it is a type of policy that specifically provides that type of coverage. Here is a 2024 opinion wherein the insurer denied coverage under a renters policy due to the insured not living in or occupying the property. The opinion is from the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. It is styled, Crystal Childers and Bradley Childers v. Allstate Indemnity Company.

The Childers bought a second home as an investment rental property in 2021. The home required repairs and remodeling before it could be rented. While the home was being worked on and through March 29, 2022, no one lived there.

The Allstate policy contained the two coverage exceptions:

Insurance Claims And Proving Repair Costs

May 25, 2024 | Mark S. Humphreys

It is one thing to sue your insurance company for doing you wrong. It is another thing to prove the costs of what they should have done for you. Here is a 2024 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, that discusses this issue. It is styled, Brian and Shannon Hart v. State Farm Lloyds.

The Harts suffered a loss to their home and their insurer is State Farm. The Harts made a claim and a lengthy dispute arose between them and State Farm as to the costs of repairs. A relevant fact in this case is that the repairs were not performed. A lawsuit resulted.

After time for discovery had passed, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the Harts were unable to prove their claim.

Homeowners Claims And Cosmetic Damage

December 25, 2023 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers who handle hail damage claims need to be aware of this 2023 opinion from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The opinion is styled, Cody Horton v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company.

In this insurance coverage dispute, the district court held for Allstate, the insurer, and, on summary judgment, dismissed the complaint of Horton, the insured. The dispositive question is whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings, to which Horton did not object, excluded Horton’s expert’s opinion as expressed in his deposition: that the damage to Horton’s metal roof was not merely uncovered cosmetic damage, but covered functional damage. Because we hold that the court’s rulings did not exclude this expert testimony, the record before us demonstrates a tryable issue of fact, i.e., whether the damage to Horton’s roof was cosmetic or functional.

A contractor for Horton reported a claim to Allstate for hail and wind damage to Horton’s metal roof arising from a storm. Horton’s homeowner insurance policy excludes “cosmetic damage caused by hail to the surface of a metal roof…” After investigating and concluding that the damage was only cosmetic, Allstate denied coverage. Horton then sued Allstate for breach of contract.

Force Placed Insurance Policies

June 12, 2023 | Mark S. Humphreys

Force Placed Insurance Policies are unique. The biggest thing to know about these policies is that their purpose is to protect the lender, not the homeowner. This is illustrated in a 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The opinion is styled, Peter Garcia v. Great American Assurance Company.

Peter Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Great American Assurance Company (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant failed to pay for covered damage to his home under an insurance policy purchased by his mortgagee, Carrington Mortgage Services LLC (“Carrington”). Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted the motion.

Plaintiff’s home is mortgaged in favor of Carrington. Lenders often require borrower-mortgagors to purchase insurance on their home. When the borrower does not do so, the lender might purchase a “force-placed” policy and include the cost in the borrower’s mortgage payments. Carrington purchased a force-placed insurance policy (“the Policy”) covering its interest in Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff is not a party to the Policy, and all payment for loss is
to be made to Carrington.

The Insurance Policy Has To Be Read Carefully

May 1, 2023 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most people who buy a homeowners insurance policy think that if anything happens to cause damage to their home, that they are covered. Well, that is simply not case way to often. All those pages of the policy are pages explaining what is not covered or placing limitations on what is covered.

Here is a 2023 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division that deals with a homeowners claim. The opinion is styled, Laur v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana.

This opinion is the result of a motion for summary judgment being filed by Safeco.

Pre-Suit Notice And Attorney Fees – 3

February 18, 2023 | Mark S. Humphreys

Bad faith insurance lawyers will always sue for recovery of attorney fee when forced to file a lawsuit. Here is a 2022, opinion dealing with attorney fees under Texas Insurance Code, Section 542A. The opinion is from the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, and is styled, Waco Hippodrome Inc. v. Central Mutual Insurance Company D/B/A Central Insurance et al.

Hippodrome filed a lawsuit against it’s insurer, Central and others alleging violation of the Texas Insurance Code and breach of contract. As part of the lawsuit, Hippodrome also sought attorney fees. Central filed a motion seeking that Hippodrome’s request for attorney fees be dismissed based on the assertion there was non compliance by Hippodrome with Section 542A.003(b)(2).

In order to prevail in its Attorney’s Fee Motion, Central has the burden to “prove that Central was entitled to but was not given a presuit notice stating the specific amount alleged to be owed by the insurer under Section 542A.003(b)(2) at least 61 days before the date the action was filed by the claimant Hippodrome.”