Home Owners Policies

Federal Court And Home Owners Claim

April 21, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Irving insurance attorneys want to be aware of the proper ways of avoiding Federal Court to best help their clients. This is illustrated in a 2016, Southern District, Houston Division opinion styled, Hector Puente and Teresa Rivera v. Pillar Insurance Company and Matthew Greenhouse.

This case was removed from State Court by Pillar.

Plaintiffs had a homeowners policy with Pillar. They allege that Greenhouse is an independent licensed adjuster who mishandled their claim in various ways, including “failed to properly adjust the claim and summarily improperly denied the claim with obvious knowledge and evidence of serious cosmetic and structural damage.

What Will A Homeowners Policy Cover?

April 19, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

When someone gets sued, they need to find out if they have coverage to protect them. So the issue for most people becomes, will my homeowners policy cover me? Courthouse News Service published an article on March 10, 2016, that shows how far a homeowners policy can go to provide liability coverage. The title of the article is, Home Insurers Cornered On Woman’s Overdose.

A man who says his daughter overdosed after someone drugged and date-raped her can sue the insurers of the home where she died, an Illinois appeals court ruled.

Haley Johnson, 21, was out with friends in May 2012 when they met Joshua Skolnik, who bought them all drinks, according to the ruling, which merely summarizes the allegations put forward by Johnson’s father. There is no indication that Skolnik faced criminal charges over Johnson’s death.

Making Home Owner Claims

March 20, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Homeowner insurance policies can be difficult to interpret when it comes time to make a claim for benefits. This 5th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion provides some insight into how the courts review and interpret insurance policies. The case is styled Claudia Ayoub; Gerald C. Ayoub v. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.

The principal question presented in this dispute over a homeowner’s insurance policy is whether a section of the policy setting forth a “reconstruction cost less depreciation” standard for dwelling loss is a coverage provision, on which the insured has the burden of proof, or a limitation of liability provision, on which the insurer has the burden. The court also had to decide how insureds can prove market value under Texas law for personal items which may have no such thing. For the reasons discussed below, the court found that summary judgment in favor of the insurer was not warranted on either issue.

The Ayoubs’ own a home in El Paso. Prior to the loss in this case, it was worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. The home was insured under a “Texas Standard Homeowners Policy” issued by Chubb. Coverage A of the Policy insured the dwelling for up to $2,511,000. Coverage B insured personal property in the home for up to $1,506,600. At additional cost, the Ayoubs purchased replacement cost endorsements for both their dwelling and personal property.

Misrepresentation Defense By Insurance Company

March 12, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys in Texas need to know how the “misrepresentation defense” works. A good illustration in found in this January 2016, opinion from the Waco Court of Appeals. The case is styled, Karl Wallace v Amtrust Insurance Company of Kansas, Inc.

Until the time of his death in 2007, Wallace’s father lived on property located at 1100 Lone Oak Drive in Oakhurst, Texas–a few hundred miles from Fort Worth, Texas. This property included both a mobile home and 130 acres of land. Because he had been granted a life estate in the property, Robert Guenther began living in the mobile home until he died in 2009. Wallace, a resident of Fort Worth, subsequently took sole ownership of the property in late 2009.

Realizing that the property was left vacant and that the mobile home was deteriorating, Wallace decided to sell the property. However, to protect his interest in the interim, Wallace contacted John Cole Insurance Agency, Inc. to procure insurance. Wallace transacted with Cole because Cole’s company had insured the property for Wallace’s father.

Water Damage And Lawsuits

March 10, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers can tell you that the process of a lawsuit on a claim can be complicated and confusing. But, understanding how the courts look at the process will help. A recent case from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st. Dist.] is a good read. It is styled, In Re Interinsurance Exchange Of The Automobile Club.

This is a mandamus action resulting from a trial court ordering Auto Club to turn over all reports of its retained engineer, Derrick S. Hancock, between the years 2000 and 2012, which relate to insurance claims.

The homeowners, John and Melanie Amponsah, had a homeowner’s policy with Auto Club. In 2012, they made a claim for foundation problems. Auto Club denied the claim base on the findings of Hancock saying the foundation problems were the result of settling and not a water leak. A lawsuit resulted claiming violations of the Texas Insurance Code and breach of contract.

Concurrent Causation Clauses

November 26, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas area insurance attorneys are most likely to see insurance companies argue “concurrent causation” in claims related to homeowners policies. The Claims Journal published an article discussing this topic in October of 2015. The title of the article is “Texas Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Concurrent-Causation Clauses In Property Policies.”

The article tells us the Texas Supreme Court in JAW the Point, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 460 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. 2015) held, on first impression, that losses incurred in demolishing and rebuilding property damage resulting from Hurricane Ike to comply with city ordinances were excluded under the policy’s anti-concurrent-causation clause. Prior to the Texas Supreme Court’s JAW decision, federal and lower state courts of appeal had interpreted and upheld the applicability of anti-concurrent-causation clauses under Texas law.

Taking its lead from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that a policy anti-concurrent-causation clause together with an exclusion for losses caused by flood, when read together, excluded from coverage any damage caused by a combination of wind and water. Previously, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., had concluded in situations involving combinations of covered wind damage and excluded flood damage that the only species covered under a policy with an anti-concurrent-causation clause is damage caused exclusively by wind. But when wind and water synergistically cause the same damage, such damage is excluded.

Residential Premises And Fences

November 15, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys, as well as all insurance attorneys might run across a situation that was seen in a recent 14th Court of Appeals opinion. The style of the case is Nassar v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

This is an appeal from a motion of summary judgment in favor of Liberty.

The Nassars owned a residence situated on six acres. In addition to the residence itself, these six acres contain a system of fences, barns, and outbuildings. Liberty insured the dwelling and other structures pursuant to a Texas Homeowners Policy Form A. This policy was in effect when Hurricane Ike hit the area and caused losses.

Fire Loss

October 24, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Benbrook insurance lawyers who help people with homeowners claims involving a fire loss will find this story from the Insurance Journal interesting. The title of the article is “Oregon Woman Loses Home, Then Her Insurance.”

An elderly southern Oregon woman says she’s been left to depend on friends and family after her home was gutted in a suspected arson and her insurance company canceled her policy. Insurance industry officials contend the process of handling fire-related claims isn’t cut-and-dry.

Lola Powell, 81, says she wasn’t home when flames flared Jan. 9 inside her house on South Second Street in Talent. “I had to go to the eye doctor to get glasses,” she says.

HomeOwners Policy And Judgment

September 12, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers will be interested in this opinion from their own backyard. It is a Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion issued in 2015, styled, Texas Farmers Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Frank Kurosky and Pamela Rust.

Kurosky lives at 4325 Fossil Drive. He also owns a home at 4333 Fossil Drive, which he rents to his daughter, Rust. Kurosky has homeowners insurance on his home at 4325 Fossil Drive with Texas Farmers on which he is listed as the sole insured. Texas Farmers also issued an insurance policy for 4333 Fossil Drive that names both Rust and Kurosky as the insureds. Kurosky also has a personal umbrella policy with Farmers Exchange.

In June 2008, Rust was injured while riding a lawnmower in her backyard. She sued Texas Farmers in the 153rd District Court for medical benefits under both Fossil Drive insurance policies. Rust later added a negligence cause of action against Kurosky in her second amended petition, filed October 23, 2009. On November 25, 2009, Texas Farmers sent a reservation-of-rights letter to Kurosky to 4325 Fossil Drive, Fort Worth, Texas, as his address was listed on the policy. Kurosky claimed never to have received the letter because his address is in Haltom City. It is undisputed that he was represented by the attorney whom Texas Farmers retained and paid.

Vacancy Exclusion In Home Owners Policies

September 5, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers who handle home owners claims are all aware of the “vacancy exclusion” in a home owners policy. They may vary slightly from policy to policy but almost of the policies are going to have an exclusion that excludes losses that result when a home or building is vacant for a defined period of time.

The Claims Journal published an article in July of 2015 dealing with this issue. The article speaks to a Florida case but because of similarities in Texas and Florida insurance law, the article is worth reading. Here is what the article says.

Homeowner policies contain a vacancy exclusion. Under the terms of the standard vacancy exclusion, damage caused by “vandalism and malicious mischief” are excluded from coverage. However, is arson encompassed within the phrase “vandalism and malicious mischief?” That issue was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeals in Botee v. Southern Fidelity Ins. Co.