Home Owners Policies

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.

Homeowners Policy And Mortgagee

June 21, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys in Fort Worth will deal with homeowners policies at some point. With that in mind, a 2014 opinion from the Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] is important to read. The style of the case is, SWE Homes, LP v. Wellington Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

There is very little dispute regarding the facts in this case. Edgar Sadberry purchased a residential property with a mortgage from SWE. He bought a Texas Dwelling Policy from Wellington covering the property and naming SWE as the mortgagee. The effective dates of the policy ran from August 11, 2010 until August 11, 2011. The policy covered losses from various hazards including fire. It further contained a Mortgage Clause, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

19. Mortgage Clause . . . .

Home Owners Policy Defininitions

June 14, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County insurance attorneys have to know how courts interpret definitions contained within policies. A recent Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case helps as it relates to the definition of “you” in a homeowners policy. The case is styled, Hodges v. Safeco. Here is some of the relevant information.

On August 17, 2009, Darrell Lee Hodges, Sr. was assaulted in his home. His son, Darrell Lee Hodges, Jr. [“DJ”], lived at the home with his father. DJ knew the assailants, knew they were looking for his father and that they posed a risk to his safety, but nonetheless failed to warn his father of the men’s presence outside the home and failed to call the police to have the men removed from the premises.

SAFECO had a homeowner’s condominium policy in place at the time of the offense. Mr. Hodges is the named policy holder and DJ is also covered because he lived at the condominium with his father. Mr. Hodges made a claim under the policy for insurance benefits to cover his injuries. SAFECO denied coverage, citing the “homeowner’s exclusion” in the policy, which precludes coverage for “bodily injury to [the named insured] or an insured.”

Injuries To An Insured

May 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Benbrook attorneys handling insurance claims need to know about this case dealing with a home owners policy. It is a 2000, case from the Austin Court of Appeals styled Easter v. Providence Lloyds Ins. Co. Here is some relevant information.

Bonnie Easter was having a difficult time dealing with the emotional and behavioral problems her daughter M.D.E. was exhibiting, and in February 1995 she placed M.D.E. in the care of Joseph and Grace Bossette, licensed foster parents. M.D.E. was nine years old at the time. Easter intended the placement to be for no more than six months.

Soon after M.D.E.’s arrival in the Bossettes’ home, Joseph Bossette began sexually molesting her. After approximately five months, M.D.E. reported the abuse to Child Protective Services. She was removed from the Bossettes’ home and returned to her mother. In February 1996, Easter brought suit on M.D.E.’s behalf against Joseph Bossette for an intentional tort for committing the abuse, and against Grace Bossette for negligence for failing to stop or report the molestation. A default judgment was rendered against the Bossettes for $300,000. Easter then brought the present action against Providence Lloyds to enforce the judgment against the Bossettes’ homeowners’ insurance carrier.