Articles Posted in Value of Claim

Dallas insurance lawyers have to know when treble damages are available in a case. A 1998, Dallas Court of Appeals helps to understand factors that will get those damages. The style of the case is, State Farm Lloyds v. Johns.

Johns house was built in 1964. Johns moved in in 1972. In the summer of 1990, Johns noticed evidence of extensive foundation problems including door misalignment, cracks in walls, and a slopping floor. Repairmen discovered two plumbing leaks under the house. Johns filed a claim with State Farm. State Farm concluded the foundation problems were caused by natural soil movement. The State Farm policy excluded damage cause by ordinary settlement and denied the claim.

Johns filed suit for violations of the DTPA and Texas Insurance Code. Johns won at trial and State Farm appealed.

North Richland Hills insurance lawyers need to know how to maximize a claim for their clients. A 1998, Texas Supreme Court opinion helps give some guidance in this regard. The style of the case is, Waite Hill Services v. World Class Metal Works. Here is what the opinion tells us.

World Class Metal Works sued Colony Insurance Company and related insurance agents, claiming breach of contract, Insurance Code violations, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and deceptive trade practices. The trial court directed a verdict for World Class on the coverage issue under the policy. The jury found that Colony engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices and failed to comply with the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The jury awarded damages in response to two jury questions.

The defendants contend that the damages award based on both jury findings is a double recovery, and the trial court should have required the plaintiff to elect its remedy. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment primarily on the grounds that the defendants waived error by not objecting to the charge in the trial court. This court held that defendants preserved error and that the trial court awarded a double recovery. Accordingly, this court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remand to the trial court to render judgment consistent with this opinion.

Arlington insurance attorneys need to be able to explain to clients what happens when an insurance company is found to do many things wrong. This is illustrated to a certain extent by a 1998 Texas Supreme Court case. The case is styled Waite Hills Services v. World Class Metal Works, Inc. Here is the relevant information from that case.

World Class chrome-plates truck hitches and muffler tips. Colony issued World Class a commercial general liability, commercial property, and commercial inland marine policy. In July 1990, a hole appeared in one of World Class’s nickel-plating tanks, causing some nickel solution to spill out of the tank. World Class did not know what caused the hole, but it stopped work on its assembly line. A World Class employee contacted David Ingram, its insurance agent, to report the incident. Ingram contacted Vee Riley, an employee of Burns & Wilcox, to determine if the event was covered. Riley advised Ingram that the event was probably not covered if normal wear and tear caused the hole. Ingram so informed World Class.

World Class drained and salvaged the remaining solution, removed the existing tank liner and installed a new liner, repaired the hole in the tank’s exterior, and engaged in clean-up efforts. These repairs allegedly cost World Class thirty days of operation.

Insurance law attorneys in Dallas and the Fort Worth area need to be able to discuss how trebling of damages works in insurance cases. The Texarkana Court of Appeals issued a 2006 opinion that helps to understand this issue. The style of the case is, Allstate Indemnity Company v. Hyman. Here is some of the relevant information.
The insured was involved in an automobile accident resulting in severe damage to the vehicle. The insured filed a claim with Allstate, but thought Allstate’s offer was inadequate. The insured also filed a lawsuit against the driver of the other car and settled. The insured brought suit against Allstate for breach of contract. The jury in the trial court found in favor of the insured that Allstate breached the contract by not paying and also found a knowing violation of the Texas Insurance Code. The jury awarded actual damages of $21,600.00 ($18,000.00 for the vehicle and $3,600.00 for a rental vehicle for a reasonable period of time), enhanced damages of $54,000.00 and also awarded $25,000.00 in attorney fees. The trial court ordered an offset in the amount of the insured’s settlement with the other driver. Both sides appealed.
This appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that Allstate was liable for breach of contract and a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, but reformed the judgment to provide for an award of $63,300.00 for damages. Rejecting Allstate’s argument that the insured never triggered its duty to pay the claim because the insured failed to provide information and failed to cooperate, the court determined that the information sought by Allstate was not pertinent to the investigation of the claim and the decision to accept or not accept the claim, but was a procedure that Allstate would follow after it accepted liability for the loss. The court agreed with the insured’s belief that if it signed the requested power of attorney, it would be agreeing to the amount Allstate wanted to pay and the insured would be left with no recourse. The court also rejected Allstate’s argument that the insured impaired it’s right of subrogation against the other driver. The court focused on the policy language, “if we make a payment,” and noted that in this instance Allstate had not made a payment, and thus was not entitled to recover its subrogation rights. The court determined that the amount of recovery by the insured in its settlement with the other driver was less than the amount the jury had determined was the actual value of the insured’s vehicle, thus holding that Allstate was entitled to an offset against the damage award in the amount of the value of the vehicle, less the deductible. In making its determination, the court examined the “one recovery rule” and the “made-whole doctrine.” The court next addressed Allstate’s alleged violation of the Texas Insurance Code and found that there was evidence to support the jury’s findings that Allstate made post-loss misrepresentations and that the insured was entitled to extra-contractual damages. In a matter of first impression, the court determined that the Texas Insurance Code capped the plaintiff’s recovery at three times the actual damages, not three times the actual damages plus additional damages, including court costs and attorney’s fees. Lastly, the court, in determining that Allstate was entitled to an offset, applied the offset only after trebling the actual damages stating that if it applied the offset before trebling the damages, “there would effectively be no punitive award.”

As all insurance law lawyers know attorney fees in a first party insurance claim case are almost always recoverable. A 2007, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case illustrates this. The style of the case is, Rosenblatt v. Freedom Life Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information from the case.

After sustaining injuries in an automobile accident, Rosenblatt asserted claims for healthcare benefits from Freedom Life. Rosenblatt sued Freedom Life, seeking damages for the company’s delays in investigating his claims and in paying him compensation.

The case was ultimately submitted to the jury on Rosenblatt’s common-law claim for bad faith and his claim that Freedom Life violated Section 541.060(a)(4)(A) of the Insurance Code and committed an unfair settlement practice by failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time.