Home Owners Policies

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.”

Fallen Tree Damage To Roof – Damage Segregation

January 21, 2023 | Mark S. Humphreys

The law clearly in Texas clearly places the burden on segregating damages on the insured. This issue is discussed in a 2022 opinion issued by the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The styled of the opinion is Benham Bagheri v. State Farm Lloyds.

This is a first-party insurance coverage action by Bagheri alleging a claim for breach of a homeowners insurance policy and extra-contractual claims in connection with damage to his residence caused by a large falling tree. State Farm moves for summary judgment, contending that Bagheri’s breach of contract claim must be dismissed because he has not provided the jury a reasonable basis to segregate damage attributable solely to the covered event, as Texas law
requires, and that he has failed to produce evidence of actions by State Farm that, absent a
breach of contract, are sufficiently extreme to enable a reasonable jury to find in his favor on his extra-contractual claims. For the reasons explained, the court grants State Farm’s
motion and dismisses this action with prejudice.

Bagheri, a homeowner and State Farm policyholder, filed a claim in 2020 after his residence was damaged by a large falling tree. State Farm inspected the residence and issued a payment that Bagheri deemed insufficient. Bagheri retained a public adjuster to prepare another estimate and requested that State Farm perform a second inspection. During the second inspection, State Farm determined that some of Bagheri’s claimed damage originated from a 2015 incident in which limbs from the same tree fell and damaged the same part of the house that Bagheri claimed was damaged in 2020. In 2015 Bagheri was insured by Farmers and filed an insurance claim, which Farmers paid, for the damage caused to his residence by the fallen tree limbs.

Homeowners Insurance Claim – 3

December 3, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

This is a 2022, homeowners claim from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The opinion is styled, Meridian Security Insurance Company v. Curtis Murphy.

In this case, Meridian seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damage caused by by a fire at Murphy’s home. Murphy asserted counter claims. Meridian now moves for summary judgment.

Murphy’s counter claims were dismissed by the Court.

Homeowners Insurance Claim – 2

November 28, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

This is a 2022, homeowners claim from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The opinion is styled, Meridian Security Insurance Company v. Curtis Murphy.

In this case, Meridian seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damage caused by by a fire at Murphy’s home. Murphy asserted counter claims. Meridian now moves for summary judgment.

Murphy’s counter claims were dismissed by the Court.

Homeowners Insurance Claims

November 26, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

This is a 2022, homeowners claim from the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The opinion is styled, Meridian Security Insurance Company v. Curtis Murphy.

In this case, Meridian seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damage caused by by a fire at Murphy’s home. Murphy asserted counter claims. Meridian now moves for summary judgment.

Murphy’s counter claims were dismissed by the Court.

Insurance Claims And Experts (Plumbing)

August 29, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance claims often do not need an expert to help the case. When an expert is needed, it is important to know how courts look at experts. Here is a homeowners case wherein an expert is being used to bolster the case. This is a 2022 opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The opinion is styled, FB & SB Leasing, LLC v. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.

In this first–party insurance dispute involving a property experiencing plumbing problems and foundation issues, Chubb presents two reliability arguments to support excluding the opinion
testimony of Plaintiff FB &SB Leasing’s sole causation expert, Michael B. Couch. Chubb urges first that Couch’s report provides insufficient information about his methodology. Second, Chubb argues Couch relied on mistaken or incorrect underlying data when opining that there were multiple leaks at the property. There’s no dispute that Couch’s testimony, if reliable, would be relevant. Chubb also doesn’t dispute Couch’s qualifications. As argued, and on this record, Chubb’s complaints go to the eventual weight a jury might afford the testimony and are most appropriately addressed at trial via cross-examination or through introduction of competing expert testimony.

As to the first argument, there’s no dispute that Couch inspected the property on multiple occasions and relied on a plumbing report that noted multiple breaks in plumbing lines. Relying on this underlying data and his ample training and experience, Couch opined on the cause of the damage to the property. This is sufficient given the parties’ arguments presented here. The second of Chubb’s arguments relies on a distinction Chubb draws between “leaks” and “breaks” in plumbing, which on this record is an issue better reserved for cross examination at trial. Both side’s experts relied on the same plumbing report that noted multiple plumbing issues. Even Defendant’s expert appears to use the terms “break” and “leak” interchangeably in his expert report. Moreover, Chubb didn’t depose Couch, which might have provided more detail and nuance on these issues to further inform a motion to exclude. Accordingly, on this record and based on the arguments presented by Chubb, the Motion, is Denied Without Prejudice. Chubb may re-urge its arguments later in the case, via a motion in limine or at trial.

Insurance Denial Based On Segregating Damages

December 4, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here, an insurance company refused to pay a claim based on their assertion that the insured customer failed to segregate damages. The Judge agreed with the insurance company. The opinion is from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. It is styled, Svetlin Tchakarov and Popova Rossitza v. Allstate Indemnity Company.

The plaintiffs filed suit to recover damages from Allstate for wind and hair damage to the roof of their property. Allstate moved for summary judgment based on Allstate’s assertion that Plaintiff’s have not provided evidence that would allow a jury to reasonably apportion the harm from the covered and non-covered causes of loss.

The relevant portion of the policy reads:

Insurance Lawsuits – Extending Deadlines

October 18, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a 2021, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, wherein the insurance company missed a deadline and tried to excuse the mistake. The styled of the opinion is, Aldo Cueller v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana.

Aldo sued Safeco in state court for breach of contract and various violations of the Texas Insurance Code after Safeco denied Also’s claim for water damage to is property. After the deadline for removal passed, Safeco filed a Notice of Removal and Aldo responded with a Motion to Remand arguing the removal was untimely.

Aldo filed the suit on May 25, 2021, and served Safeco’s registered agent in Texas on June 4, 2021.

Palo Pinto County And Hail Damage Claim

August 2, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

The Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, decided a case in 2021 wherein the lawyer for insured did a good job of pleading his case. The strange thing about this case is that it was filed in 2021, well after the new section of the Insurance Code was in effect, that being section 542A. In section 542A, suing the adjuster has essentially been made something of the past, with rare exceptions. However, it is not the issue in this case but the case still serves as a good example on how to name the insurance adjuster in such a way as to keep the case in State Court rather than being removed to Federal Court.

The style of the case is, Paradise Villas HOA, Inc. v. Amguard Insurance Company and Todd Anthony Gilmore. Paradise is the insured, Amguard is the insurer, and Gilmore is the adjuster.

Paradise suffered alleged hail damage and properly reported the claim to Amguard. Gilmore, a Texas Citizen, was assigned to adjust the claim and according to Paradise, Gilmore greatly under estimated the value of the claim. A lawsuit was filed in State Court and Amguard caused the case to be removed to Federal Court alleging that Gilmore was improperly named in an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction and asserting that the causes of action asserted against Gilmore could not stand. Paradise filed a motion to remand which is the cause of this opinion.