Home Owners Policies

Homeowners Policy Interpretation

July 25, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Irving insurance law attorneys who handle claims involving homeowner policy’s need to read this recent opinion out of the Dallas Court of Appeals. It is styled, David Fusaro v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company.

David Fusaro appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Trinity Universal Insurance Company (TUIC). Among other things he contends that his claims asserted against TUIC’s insured were covered under TUIC’s policy.

Christopher Becherer’s mother drove her Isuzu Rodeo to Becherer’s house where she left it with Becherer to replace the brakes. Becherer used a hydraulic jack centered on the front of the vehicle to jack up the vehicle, remove the front wheels, and work on the brakes. Although Becherer had jack stands nearby, he did not use them. Becherer’s friend, Fusaro, was at his house and offered to help when Becherer had difficulty removing a brake caliper. While Fusaro was partially under the front passenger wheel well struggling to loosen a caliper bolt, the hydraulic “jack gave way” and the vehicle suddenly fell on top of Fusaro.

Texas Homeowners Policy’s And Costs

April 9, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers need to keep up with general information in the insurance world. Claims Journal published an article recently worth reading. It is titled, State Farm to Pay $352.5M to Settle Texas Residential Overcharge Case. It says:

A settlement has been reached in a long-running dispute between the nation’s largest homeowners’ insurer and the state of Texas over premium overcharges.

The Texas Office of Public Insurance Counsel (OPIC) announced Feb. 27 that a settlement had been reached requiring State Farm subsidiary, State Farm Lloyds, to refund $352.5 million in premium overcharges and interest to its Texas policyholders.

Renters Insurance And Misrepresentation

March 21, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

De Soto insurance lawyers who handle renters insurance need to read this case from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st. Dist.]. It is styled Zatorski v. USAA Texas Lloyds.

After Zatorski’s home was burglarized, he sued USAA, alleging that USAA had represented to Zatorski that his renter’s insurance policy would cover greater losses than it did. USAA moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. This appeals Court affirmed the ruling.

Zatorski owned a high-rise, loft residence in Houston. In October 2009, a kitchen pipe broke and flooded the loft. Zatorski rented a single-family home while the loft was being repaired, and he called USAA to buy a renter’s insurance policy. He spoke with a USAA representative, paid for a one-year renter’s insurance policy over the phone, and did not review the written policy when he received it.

Mineral Wells Home Owners Claim

March 15, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells insurance attorneys probably already know about this case. It is an Eastland Court of Appeals case styled, Spurlock v Beacon Lloyds Insurance Company.

This case involves the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy. The Court had to construe a policy to determine if coverage exists for a personal property loss alleged to have occurred after the death of the named insured. Kelly Spurlock, as legal representative for the Estate of J.O. Spurlock, brought suit against Beacon to recover proceeds under a homeowner’s insurance policy for the loss of personal property that was allegedly stolen from a residence.

J.O. Spurlock owned and lived in a house in Mineral Wells, Texas, that he insured with Beacon. The policy was effective from May 31, 2008, to May 31, 2009. The “RESIDENCE PREMISES/DWELLING” listed in the declarations page of the policy was identified by the legal description of J.O. Spurlock’s house. The street address of the house was 704 Cedar in Mineral Wells. The policy provided dwelling coverage and personal property coverage.

Misrepresentation By Insured

February 19, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers know that ruling from other states are sometimes looked at by courts in Texas. One example is a 2014, opinion by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This court hears Texas cases, so knowing how they look at cases is important. The opinion is styled, Nationwide v. Baptist.

The district court held that the Baptists initially purchased a valid homeowner’s insurance policy from Nationwide, but that subsequent renewals of that policy were void ab initio because they occurred after the Baptists lost ownership of their home to foreclosure.

The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. The Baptists purchased the Nationwide policy in October 2006. Just over two years later, in November 2008, they lost their home to foreclosure. They did not inform Nationwide of the foreclosure sale, however, and they continued to occupy in the home. The Bank of New York, which had purchased the home at the foreclosure sale, sought and obtained a judgment evicting the Baptists on December 9, 2011. That should have caused the Baptists to vacate the home by January 13, 2012, but it was seriously damaged by a fire or fires on December 27 and 28, 2011. It was in conducting a post-loss investigation of the Baptists’ claims arising from these fires that Nationwide first discovered that they no longer held title to the property.

Exclusion For Recreational Vehicle

January 13, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells insurance attorneys handling home owners claim will someday see something similar to the issued dealt with in this 2014, opinion. The opinion was issued by the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.]. The style of the case is, Oleksy v. Farmers Insurance Exchange. Here is the relevant information.

In 2007, Oleksy went snowmobiling in New York with his friend Paul Pochron and several other people. Pochron was seriously injured when his snowmobile collided with Oleksy’s. Pochron and his wife later sued Oleksy.

Oleksy filed a declaratory judgment action against Farmers, his homeowner’s insurance carrier, seeking a declaration that Farmers has a duty to defend and to indemnify him in the lawsuit filed by Pochron. Although his homeowner’s policy includes an exclusion for personal injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles, Oleksy based his claim for coverage on an exception to that exclusion. The relevant policy provisions are:

Homeowners Insurance And Foreclosure

January 3, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lawyers who deal with homeowners insurance policies might face the following situation at some point in their legal career. It is an interesting case and is from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a 2014 opinion styled, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v.Baptist. here is some relevant information from the case.

The district court held that the Baptists initially purchased a valid homeowner’s insurance policy from Nationwide, but that subsequent renewals of that policy were void ab initio because they occurred after the Baptists lost ownership of their home to foreclosure.

The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. The Baptists purchased the Nationwide policy in October 2006. Just over two years later, in November 2008, they lost their home to foreclosure. They did not inform Nationwide of the foreclosure sale, however, and they continued to occupy in the home. The Bank of New York, which had purchased the home at the foreclosure sale, sought and obtained a judgment evicting the Baptists on December 9, 2011. That should have caused the Baptists to vacate the home by January 13, 2012, but it was seriously damaged by a fire or fires on December 27 and 28, 2011. It was in conducting a post-loss investigation of the Baptists’ claims arising from these fires that Nationwide first discovered that they no longer held title to the property.

Water Damage To Home

September 23, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth attorneys who handle water damage claims want to keep up with cases decided by juries through out the state of Texas. A recent case from the Houston Court of Appeals (14th Dist.) is worth reading. The style of the case is, Khan v. Safeco Surplus Lines. Here is some of the relevant information from the case.

In late August 2002, the Khans returned home from a multiple-week family vacation and discovered “[w]ater . . . everywhere in the house” as if there was “no roof on the home.” On August 26, 2002, Khan reported the matter to Safeco. According to Khan, the water in the Property came from a single air conditioning pan leak in the attic.

Safeco assigned the claim to Crawford for adjustment and investigation. Crawford opened a file and appointed an adjustor to handle it. By September 13, Safeco had opened ten claims on the Property. The adjustor contacted a plumbing company to investigate possible leaks and engineer Gary Whightsil to investigate the loss. Whightsil had extensive investigative experience; he had investigated nearly 250 water- and mold-damaged houses prior to examining the Property. Whightsil inspected the Property on September 19. His investigation revealed numerous sources of water intrusion beyond the air conditioning pan leak.

Water Damage To Foundation

September 4, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys will get phone calls where a home owner has a claim denied by the insurance company where the insurance company says the foundation damage is not covered under the policy. The United States District Court, Houston Division issued an opinion recently that deals with a claim denial for foundation damage. The style of the case is, Salazar v. State Farm Lloyds. Here is the relevant information from the opinion.

This is an insurance coverage dispute. The plaintiffs, Diane Salazar and Jesse Salazar, obtained a homeowners’ insurance policy (the “Policy”) from State Farm Lloyds. The Salazars allege that State Farm breached the Policy and extracontractual duties by denying their claim for losses for damage to the interior of the home caused by water leaking from plumbing pipes under the home. The Salazars allege that the damage was caused by foundation movement resulting from the water leaks. State Farm Lloyds denied coverage for the collateral losses from the foundation movement.

The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The issue is the relationship of two endorsements: the Dwelling Foundation Endorsement (DFE) and the Water Damage Endorsement (WDE). The DFE limits coverage for foundation and related damage to 15% of the Policy’s Coverage A–Dwelling limit. The Salazars’ Dwelling limit is $229,100. State Farm asks this court to grant partial summary judgment that any recovery is limited to 15% of that amount, or $34,365.00. In their cross-motion and response, the Salazars contend that the WDE provides coverage for losses due to foundation movement caused by plumbing leaks. They assert that the WDE provides broader coverage than the DFE and therefore controls. Alternatively, they assert that the endorsements are conflicting, producing ambiguity that must be construed in their favor.

Surface Water Exclusion In Homeowners Insurance

July 3, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County insurance attorneys need to know the exclusions in homeowners policies and how courts interpret those exclusions. A 2007, Dallas Court of Appeals case is one worth reading. It is styled, Crocker v. American National General Insurance Co. Here is some of the relevant information.
The insureds had a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by American. The policy included a standard “surface water” exclusion. Because of improper design, the insureds’ raised patio collected water, which ran into the insured’s home. Armstrong, who represented an independent adjusting firm, was retained by one of the insurance companies to investigate the claim. After Armstrong’s report, coverage for the claim was denied under the “surface water” exclusion. The insureds’ brought suit against the insurance companies for breach of contract and for breach of common law and statutory duties of good faith, arguing that the “surface water” exclusion did not apply because the water was on the patio and never actually touched the surface of the ground. The insured’s also filed suit against Armstrong alleging negligence per se for violations of Texas Penal Code sections 22.02, 28.03, and 28.04; violations of Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.060; and for violations of the DTPA. Both carriers and Armstrong moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for all of the defendants, holding that the water which had fallen on the raised patio constituted “surface water” as a matter of law. Neither American nor Armstrong has addressed the “surface water” exclusion in their motion for summary judgment. The insureds’ appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the plain meaning of the words “surface water” could reasonably include water that had collected on the surface of the insured’s patio, and thus, the “surface water” exclusion applied to the insureds’ claim. The court found that “surface water” is defined as water or natural precipitation diffused over the surface of the “ground” until it evaporates, is absorbed by the land, or reaches channels where water naturally flows. The court then found that to limit the term “ground” to dirt would exclude all man-made surfaces and, therefore, render the exclusion virtually meaningless in the multitude of man-made environments. The court also found that since the carriers’ had a valid exclusion they could not be liable for any bad faith claims. The court further found that the summary judgment was valid for both American and Armstrong, under the “surface water” exclusions even though they had not affirmatively pled the exclusion. The court further held that Armstrong as an independent adjuster, owed no duty to the insureds’ and, therefore, could not be liable for bad faith claims; and the insureds’ had not properly briefed the Penal Code claims against Armstrong.