Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
How do you calculate the beginning date and end date for violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act? The start date was calculated in the previous post. Here is a discussion on the end date for calculation.
The statute does not say when the penalty stops accruing. No court has addressed this specific issue. Several courts have simply held that the penalty accrues from the date of the violation up to the date of judgement, without any analysis for choosing that date. This was done in the 2010, 5th Circuit opinion, Great American Insurance Co. v. AFS/IBEX Financial Services, Inc. Also in the 2004, Texas Supreme Court opinion, Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Cameron. Other courts have held that the penalty accrues until the insurer settled. This was seen in the 2000, San Antonio Court of Appeals opinion, Cater v. United Services Automobile Ass’n and in the 1196, Texarkana Court of Appeals opinion, Southland Lloyd’s Insurance Co. v. Tomberlain. One approach is to end the accrual of the 18% damages on the day of the judgment. This is the approach taken in Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Barclay, which is from the 1994, opinion of the Austin Court of Appeals. The statute itself, neither embraces nor rejects this approach.
Another approach would be to continue accruing the 18% damages until the insurer fully discharges its liability, including payment of the 18% damages and attorney’s fees. An argument for this approach is that, presumably, the Legislature intended the 18% damages partially to compensate claimants for the delay and partially to punish insurers for violations. If the 18% damages accrue only up to the time of judgment, this would mean that while the insurer is contesting liability, perhaps even in good faith and reasonably, these extra damages would accrue, but once the claim is finally established, the incentive to pay would be removed. Arguably, it makes no sense to compensate the claimant when his claim is disputed, but once it is certain to no longer compensate him. Likewise, it makes no sense to punish the insurer for withholding a disputed claim, but to no longer punish it for withholding an established claim. Case law makes clear the statute recognizes that the insurer denies the claim at its risk. If the insurer gambles and loses, it pays these additional damages. Similarly, if the insurer wants to gamble on continuing to contest the claim once judgment has been rendered, that choice may bear financial consequences. Interestingly, in the Cater case above, the court ended the penalty on the date the claim was paid, to shorten the time period, presumably as a reward or encouragement for the insurer to pay the claim. Conversely, the penalty should be extended when the insurer continues to refuse to pay, especially after the judgment is rendered.