Articles Posted in Home Owners Policies

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.