Articles Posted in Home Owners Policies

Insurance lawyers who handle hail damage claims need to be aware of this 2023 opinion from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The opinion is styled, Cody Horton v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company.
In this insurance coverage dispute, the district court held for Allstate, the insurer, and, on summary judgment, dismissed the complaint of Horton, the insured.  The dispositive question is whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings, to which Horton did not object, excluded Horton’s expert’s opinion as expressed in his deposition: that the damage to Horton’s metal roof was not merely uncovered cosmetic damage, but covered functional damage.  Because we hold that the court’s rulings did not exclude this expert testimony, the record before us demonstrates a tryable issue of fact, i.e., whether the damage to Horton’s roof was cosmetic or functional.
A contractor for Horton reported a claim to Allstate for hail and wind damage to Horton’s metal roof arising from a storm.  Horton’s homeowner insurance policy excludes “cosmetic damage caused by hail to the surface of a metal roof…”  After investigating and concluding that the damage was only cosmetic, Allstate denied coverage.  Horton then sued Allstate for breach of contract.

Force Placed Insurance Policies are unique.  The biggest thing to know about these policies is that their purpose is to protect the lender, not the homeowner.  This is illustrated in a 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The opinion is styled, Peter Garcia v. Great American Assurance Company.

Peter Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Great American Assurance Company (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant failed to pay for covered damage to his home under an insurance policy purchased by his mortgagee, Carrington Mortgage Services LLC (“Carrington”).  Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Court granted the motion.


Plaintiff’s home is mortgaged in favor of Carrington.  Lenders often require borrower-mortgagors to purchase insurance on their home.  When the borrower does not do so, the lender might purchase a “force-placed” policy and include the cost in the borrower’s mortgage payments.  Carrington purchased a force-placed insurance policy (“the Policy”) covering its interest in Plaintiff’s home.  Plaintiff is not a party to the Policy, and all payment for loss is
to be made to Carrington.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 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 firstparty 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 breaksin plumbing, which on this record is an issue better reserved for cross examination at trial.  Both sides 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.

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:

Contact Information