Articles Posted in Hail Claims

Hail damage claims, like a lots of other types of claims, have their own nuances that an insurance attorney needs to be prepared to address.

Here is a 2022, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, that addresses a hail damage claim and the assertion that that the insurer made, that at least part of the hail damage, while real, occurred at a time when the policy was not in effect.  The style of the case is, Leo Parrish, et al. v. State Auto Insurance Company.

Parish had a policy with State Auto that covered the period November 2, 2019, to November 2, 2020.  The policy has a hail damage deductible of $5,921.  In March 2020, Parrish noticed neighbors receiving new roofs and subsequently had a neighbors roofer inspect his roof.  Parrish was told that his roof was also damaged and then Parrish made a claim against State Auto.

The Amarillo Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 2, 2022, that is important as it relates to cases involving hail and wind damages to roofs of structures.  This opinion has a bit less to do with insurance and more to do with the roofing contractor business as it is regulated by the Texas Department of Insurance.  The opinion is styled, Stonewater Roofing, Ltd. Co. v. Texas Department of Insurance et al.

Here is some background.

In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted provisions under the insurance code
regulating “public insurance adjusting.” Public insurance adjusters are frequently hired by an insured to help resolve and settle insurance claims.  The enacted provisions, Texas Insurance Code, Sections 4102.051, provide that a public insurance adjuster must be licensed in order to adjust insurance claims on an insured’s behalf.  Under these provisions, pursuant to Code Section, 4102.163, any person or entity defined as a contractor is prohibited from adjusting insurance claims for properties at which the contractor is, or will be, providing contracting services.  Likewise, licensed public insurance adjusters are prohibited from providing any contracting services on property at which they are, or will be, providing public insurance adjusting services.  In other words, acting as a public insurance adjuster and a contractor on the same claim is a statutorily
defined conflict of interest according to Section 4102.158(a)(1).

Here is a 2021, opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, where the insured made a claim for hail damage against its insurer but did virtually nothing to prove the damage was caused by hail.  The style of the case is, 343 West Sunset, LLC v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.

In this case, 343 made a claim for hail damages.  The date listed for the hail damage was the last date for which there was coverage and it was undisputed that there was no hail storm on that date.

The Court spells out the problems with this claim and why the court is granted summary judgment in favor of Seneca.

This is a case about hail damage.  But, this is not the significance of the case.

The Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an opinion on April 28, 2021.  The opinion is styled, Alejandro Martinez Perez and Claudia A. Lopez Orozco v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company and Stephen McKinney.

The significance of this case is that the Plaintiff’s filed a motion for summary judgement and Allstate did not respond to the motion.  In 27 years of practicing law, this is the first time I have noticed an insurance company law firm not respond to a summary judgment motion.

Maybe the title of this blog should be a little different but for insurance lawyers dealing with insurance companies all the time the comment by the Judge at the end of the case is worthwhile.

As all insurance lawyers know, the insurance companies prefer to litigate denied claims in Federal Court rather than the State and County Courts.  It’s really simple to understand, the rules and handling of cases in Federal Court tend to favor insurance companies.

The case here is from the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.  It is styled, Gina Lewis et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana et al.

Insurance attorneys are well aware of the changes in the Texas Insurance Code statutes that effect hail damage claims and other damages resulting from Mother-Nature.  What cannot not be overlooked is the responsibility to make clear what caused the claimed damages.  In other words are all the damages from a particular event or are some of the damages being claimed the result of another event or are simply wear and tear.

A 2021, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, explains the necessity of segregating damages in a claim for insurance coverage.  The style of the opinion is, Harold Franklin Overstreet v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.

Pursuant to the 1999, San Antonio Court of Appeals opinion styled, Wallis v. United Servs.  Auto. Ass’n, an insured can only recover for covered events under his policy; therefore, he bears the burden of segregating the damage attributable solely to the covered event.

Hail damage claims, like most claims are unique to themselves.  Questions that have to be answered in favor of the homeowner include, 1) when did the damage occur, 2) is the damage real damage versus cosmetic damage, 3) was there any damage already existing on the roof, 4) is hail the sole cause of the damage or were there other causes of damage, 5) is wear and tear an issue?  These and other factors are sometimes obvious.  But, at other times an expert is needed.

The Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued a 2021, opinion which is a summary judgment opinion wherein an expert was needed.  The opinion is styled, Dustin Farris v. State Farm Lloyds.  This is a case where the expert did much more harm than good.  The discussion of his opinion shows how obviously bad the expert report he wrote is bad.

The Court spent much time discussing how summary judgment is decided.

Here is an opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, that concerns hail damage and segregating damages.  The opinion is styled, Frymire Home Services, Inc. and Whitfield Capital, LLC v. Ohio Security Insurance Co.

This is a summary judgement opinion in filed by Ohio and the Court granted the summary judgment in favor of Ohio.

This is a hail damage insurance dispute.  Ohio insured Property owed by Plaintiffs.  The policy was in effect from March 23, 2018, until March 23, 2019.

Lawyers handling hail damage claims have to prove the claim.  This is illustrated in a Southern District of Texas case styled, Faustina Ortiz v. United States Liability Insurance Group, et al.

Ortiz owns a restaurant in Conroe, Texas.  He had a policy of insurance with United that provided coverage for windstorms and hailstorms wherein the policy period was from January 26, 2016, to January 26, 2017.  On August 23, 2016, a claim was filed with United asserting that on May 26, 2016, a hailstorm caused extensive damage to the building and walls.

United’s adjuster inspected the building on September 6.  He photographed and found (1) deterioration, (2) poor maintenance, (3) numerous gaps in the roof, and (4) earlier repairs.