Why It’s Important To Take Your Time When Purchasing Property Insurance

Attorney Patrick McGinnis Talks Winning Claims On ‘The Legal Fix’ Radio Show

Chad T. Wilson Law Firm Attorney, Patrick McGinnis, was a special guest on The Legal Fix radio show last month where he talked about winning denied insurance claims. Has your insurance company unfairly denied your property damage claim? If so, contact us today for a free case review. You may be entitled to compensation.

While a fast settlement offer from an insurer might seem like a stroke of luck, you should keep in mind that the amount being offered may be well below what you are actually entitled to. Here are 3 reasons to think twice before accepting a fast settlement offer.

When your home or property has suffered damage, your insurance company should be there to help with repairs to get the situation remedied. Unfortunately, not all insurance companies see it that way. It’s in their best financial interest to avoid paying claims where possible even when the claims are legitimate. They will use tactics like denying, delaying, or undervaluing claims in the hopes that the policyholder will just be quiet and go away. This can include offering to cut a check right away for a quick, no-hassle settlement. Here are 3 reasons to think twice before accepting a fast settlement offer.

1. Adjusters Want The Best Outcome For Their Employer (not you) – Your insurance adjuster might seem like he’s looking out for you and maybe he/she is to a certain extent, but remember they work for your insurer and not you. They may misrepresent or intentionally misinterpret your policy to save their employer money.

2. You May Not Know The Full Extent Of The Damage – When property damage is suffered and you first file a claim you may not fully understand the extent of the damage. Things like hidden structural damage can be present without you realizing it and only later after you’ve accepted the settlement does it come to light. Situations like this can end up costing you much more than what the insurance company paid out.

3. First Offers Are Often Deliberately Low – The first settlement offer is by design a low one. The least amount they can give a policyholder to make them go away the better. If your adjuster gives you a fast settlement offer it could be a sign they know the claim is worth more.

Get A FREE Case Review

If you have recently had home or property damage and already accepted a settlement offer, but now realize it was significantly undervalued you may have a case. If your insurer acted in bad faith you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us today for a free case review.

Courtroom Victories Against State Farm

Chad T. Wilson recently sat down with Roofing Insights to discuss his firm’s recent legal victories against State Farm. Watch the full interview below. You can also read about the State Farm cases here and here.

Chad T. Wilson Courtroom Victories Against State Farm:

Victory: Texas Jury Awards Damages To State Farm Policyholder Over Unfair And Deceptive Practices

In March this year, the Texas Supreme Court published its landmark opinion on another Chad T. Wilson Law Firm case – again, a client insured by State Farm, Luis Hinijos.  This was a huge win for all policyholders in Texas because it stopped all insurance companies from utilizing a carrier-created loophole to circumvent Texas law.  Here’s the typical scenario. An insured has a covered loss and notifies their insurance company.  The company would accept the claim and pay pennies on the dollar of the damages. The insured would complain but the carrier would not budge far from its initial position. The insured would then sue and the carrier, State Farm being the worst culprit, would run up litigation expenses. Appraisal of the damages would be invoked to set the cost to repair; the carrier would send a check for the appraisal award less the depreciation less the deductible less prior payments if any. The carrier would run back to the court and ask for summary judgment claiming “no harm, no foul judge” – and they were getting away with it. This left insureds economically upside down on their cases. The Chad T. Wilson Law Firm took Mr. Hinojos’s case to the Texas Supreme Court to stop this trend in its tracks. The Court agreed stating that an insurer is not absolved of its statutory liability when it pays only part of a claim within the statutory deadline set forth in the statute. An insurer that fails to pay all amounts that “must be paid” under the applicable policy will be liable for interest and attorney’s fees. On the street, this means if an appraisal award comes back higher than the insurance company’s initial estimate of damages, they owe the difference plus interest plus attorney fees and they are still on the hook for damages for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

Unanimous Jury Verdict in Tarrant County for CTWLF Client: Jury found State Farm knowingly violated the Texas Insurance Code Jury awarded Plaintiff damages equivalent to seven times his property damage 

After the trial concluded, jurors stated they were disappointed with how State Farm handled Aaron’s claim, how State Farm ‘covered up’ the first adjuster’s haphazard inspection, and were deeply troubled that it took three years and a trial for State Farm to admit they made a mistake; it obvious to the jury that State Farm’s admission was only for damage control, there was no remorse.  This jury was made up of Tarrant County citizens, a jurisdiction typically known as a tough venue for Plaintiffs.  Not only did this jury see Defendant State Farm’s actions were wrong, they returned a unanimous verdict that left no doubt how wrong State Farm was in this case.

Has your claim been denied?

The Chad T. Wilson Law Firm handles insurance property disputes and takes on tough, serious cases against some of the largest corporations in America. With a proven track record of getting things done, Chad T. Wilson is fighting for courtroom victories against State Farm and other major insurance carriers. If your homeowner’s insurance claim has been denied, delayed or, underpaid, call us. We have represented thousands of homeowners against insurance companies, big and small. As a contingency-based law firm, our expert insurance claims attorneys aggressively fight for the rights of the policyholder. Free consultation. No recovery equals no fee. Contact us today.

Jury found State Farm knowingly violated the Texas Insurance Code

Euless, Texas is a small town tucked between Fort Worth and Dallas. As part of Tarrant County, Euless has had its share of severe weather events. Chad T. Wilson Law Firm client Aaron P. endured a windstorm in the spring of 2018.  Typical of many property owners who sustain storm damage, he remembered the storm but didn’t notice water coming into his home until heavy rains doused the area a few months later.

Frantic at the sight of the water intrusion, Aaron called his State Farm agent to report the loss.  His agent’s initial response was to tell Aaron he had no claim – no attempt to send anyone out to inspect.  The client went to Home Depot, bought a tarp, and covered one of the roof areas he believed water was coming in.  He called his State Farm agent again and insisted his home needed to be looked at.  This time, the agent’s rep assured him “not to worry,” and they’d have an inspector out in a week to inspect…  all the while water was dripping from his ceiling in several different locations.

According to our client, State Farm’s adjuster came in and immediately responded with weird explanations of what the water damage was that our client was pointing out.  Our client knew from the get-go that this State Farm adjuster was not there to help him.  After a myriad of false explanations of the water spots, the adjuster spent a few minutes on the roof then left without saying a word.  Our client received a letter from State Farm a few days later that stated his damages were $0.  The letter also stated that State Farm found other damages to the client’s home, like vermin damage, insect damage, bird damage, latent defect damage et al., none of which was noted in State Farm’s claim file, nor did it exist at the property.

Our client cried foul to State Farm, and State Farm sent two different adjusters to a second inspection.  These two found windstorm damage but kept the amount of damage to $550 and below the deductible.  Thereafter, our client came to us for help.  State Farm sent a third adjuster before a lawsuit was filed. Ultimately, State Farm or its attorneys redacted all traces of this adjuster’s findings in the file provided to us without a justification for those omissions.

State Farm would eventually assign a litigation expert to inspect the 60-year-old home. This litigation ‘expert’ now cited a litany of non-covered damage, citing soot, candles, defective gas appliances, rodents, termites, foundation issues, “reflections off the carpet,” wear, tear, “weather events,” roof nail pops, mistakes on the part of the adjusters, and even soda on the ceiling.  State Farm’s litigation experts were particularly disingenuous about their findings.

After a contentious three-year legal battle, trial attorneys Chad T. Wilson and Amanda Fulton faced State Farm’s legal team in a Tarrant County courtroom. Through fact and expert witness testimony, methodical direct examination, and oftentimes eviscerating cross-examination, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fulton relayed Aaron’s story and his mistreatment by his longtime insurer to the jury. Ironically, Aaron chose State Farm as his insurer because his family had been with State Farm for decades. When it came time to buy his first home in 2002, the decision was easy for him, and he went with State Farm. Little did he know how worthless State Farm’s promise to be there when he needed it most really was.

After two and a half days, the jury was sent to deliberate at 2:15 PM on September 17, 2021.  They returned two hours and ten minutes later with a unanimous verdict in Plaintiff’s favor citing State Farm was liable on all counts and providing damages on each of those counts.  The jury awarded over $24,000 in property damages that State Farm failed to pay.  The jury also hit State Farm with various punitive damages for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and unconscionable acts.  In addition, the jury found that State Farm knowingly conducted these bad acts and knowingly violated the insurance code.  The jurors ended up awarding Aaron more than seven times the estimated amount required to repair his home.

After the trial concluded, jurors stated they were disappointed with how State Farm handled Aaron’s claim, how State Farm ‘covered up’ the first adjuster’s haphazard inspection, and were deeply troubled that it took three years and a trial for State Farm to admit they made a mistake; it obvious to the jury that State Farm’s admission was only for damage control, there was no remorse.  This jury was made up of Tarrant County citizens, a jurisdiction typically known as a tough venue for Plaintiffs.  Not only did this jury see Defendant State Farm’s actions were wrong, they returned a unanimous verdict that left no doubt how wrong State Farm was in this case.

If your homeowner’s insurance claim has been denied, delayed or, underpaid, call us. We have represented thousands of homeowners against insurance companies, big and small. As a contingency-based law firm, our expert insurance claims attorneys aggressively fight for the rights of the policyholder. Free consultation. No recovery equals no fee. Contact us today.

Victory: Texas Jury Awards Damages To State Farm Policyholder Over Unfair And Deceptive Practices

Linda Veach first called her insurance company, State Farm, the day after a big and loud storm passed through Irving, Texas on June 6 of 2018. When she called to report her concerns, she was told that nobody from State Farm was going to come out and look at her house and that they did not think any damage was done. Trusting her insurance company, she accepted what she was told. When the damage to her seven-year-old roof was later pointed out to her by a neighbor, she looked for herself. She found the “dents” that were caused by hail. Linda called State Farm again, explained what she saw, and let them know that she really wanted them to look at her hail-damaged roof.

State Farm sent their adjuster. He spent about an hour going over the roof and inside of the home only to tell Linda that there was some damage to a flat part of the roof and a few other parts of the home. He left a few handwritten notices and a check for $549.95. Days later his actual estimate and partial denial letter came in the mail. The estimate did not match what was told by the adjuster. It included coverage for some hail-damaged items on the outside of the house and a few interior repairs. Not included in the estimate was any of the hail-damaged roof, not even the flat roof that Linda was told had hail damage.

Linda tried to handle things on her own, asking State Farm to take a better look, and even unsuccessfully trying to invoke the appraisal clause in her State Farm policy. Throughout the process, State Farm and its representatives played “gotcha” with her claim, raised technicalities against her, and refused to do the right thing. So, Linda hired the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm and a suit was filed against State Farm. 

Chad Wilson and Robert House of the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm fought to get answers and to protect Linda from these games. Along the way, they tried to get State Farm to resolve the case through negotiations and mediation. State Farm actively failed to do right by its policyholder at every step along the way. State Farm hired biased experts who said that there was no hail damage done to Linda’s roof, but instead what looked like hail damage was a product defect on the shingles. State Farm even tried to keep their full expert reports and other materials from their policyholder.

Through the four-day trial in United States District Court, it became clear that State Farm had all the information they needed to take the correct action on the date of the very first inspection. On August 26, 2021 the jury returned its verdict finding that State Farm failed to comply with its insurance policy, awarding all costs required for Ms. Veach’s repairs, and that State Farm engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that caused damages to the plaintiff, awarding a little more than two times the costs for the repairs for those damages. Separate from the jury’s findings, the court will be asked to assess attorney fees and other costs against State Farm.

The jury told State Farm that it could not take advantage of its policyholders and hope they will go away silently and thanks to the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, Linda Veach will be able to get the repairs done to her home and fix all the damage caused by the hailstorm.

In March this year, the Texas Supreme Court published its landmark opinion on another Chad T. Wilson Law Firm case – again, a client insured by State Farm, Luis Hinijos.  This was a huge win for all policyholders in Texas because it stopped all insurance companies from utilizing a carrier-created loophole to circumvent Texas law.  Here’s the typical scenario. An insured has a covered loss and notifies their insurance company.  The company would accept the claim and pay pennies on the dollar of the damages. The insured would complain but the carrier would not budge far from its initial position. The insured would then sue and the carrier, State Farm being the worst culprit, would run up litigation expenses. Appraisal of the damages would be invoked to set the cost to repair; the carrier would send a check for the appraisal award less the depreciation less the deductible less prior payments if any. The carrier would run back to the court and ask for summary judgment claiming “no harm, no foul judge” – and they were getting away with it. This left insureds economically upside down on their cases. The Chad T. Wilson Law Firm took Mr. Hinojos’s case to the Texas Supreme Court to stop this trend in its tracks. The Court agreed stating that an insurer is not absolved of its statutory liability when it pays only part of a claim within the statutory deadline set forth in the statute. An insurer that fails to pay all amounts that “must be paid” under the applicable policy will be liable for interest and attorney’s fees. On the street, this means if an appraisal award comes back higher than the insurance company’s initial estimate of damages, they owe the difference plus interest plus attorney fees and they are still on the hook for damages for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

The Chad T. Wilson Law Firm handles insurance property disputes and takes on tough, serious cases against some of the largest corporations in America.

Huge Victory For Policyholders in Texas Supreme Court!

On March 19, 2021 the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds (No. 19-0280), in favor of Louis Hinojos, a client of Chad T. Wilson Law Firm. This was a huge victory for Texas policyholders. The Hinojos opinion will substantially assist policyholders to win Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”) damages including interest and attorney fees after appraisal.

Before the Texas Supreme Court decided the case of Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019), insurance companies could avoid all damages, including TPPCA damages, by simply invoking appraisal and paying the resulting appraisal award. This situation was patently unfair to Texas policyholders because the typical fact pattern was that an insurer would make a low initial claim payment, the policyholder would file suit, and during litigation (months or years after the date of loss) the insurance company would invoke appraisal and then pay the resulting award…an award that was always substantially more than the initial claim payment. The insurance company would then file a motion for summary judgment and get the policyholder’s entire case dismissed, including 18% interest under the TPPCA and attorney fees. However, Barbara Technologies held that an insurer may not avoid TPPCA damages by simply paying an appraisal award. Not surprisingly, the insurance industry quickly tried to find ways around Barbara Technologies. Using a portion of a string cite in the 5th Circuit case of Mainali Corp. v. Covington Specialty Insurance Co. 872 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2017), insurance companies argued that as long as the initial claim payment was “reasonable” then even if the appraisal award ended up being much higher than the initial claim payment, policyholders were still unable to pursue TPPCA damages against the insurance company. For example, in the case of Shin v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 4:18-CV-01784, 2019 WL 4170259, at *2 (S.D. Tex. September 3, 2019) Allstate argued and the court held that an initial claim payment that was 5.6 times less than the ultimate appraisal award was still “reasonable” and the court granted summary judgment for Allstate, which eliminated the policyholder’s damages under the TPPCA.

Thanks to the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, the Texas Supreme Court closed the door on this ridiculous “reasonable” claim payment argument. Louis Hinojos is a homeowner in El Paso, Texas who purchased an insurance policy from State Farm Lloyds. On June 3, 2013 the Hinojos home was hit by a severe wind and hailstorm. Hinojos filed a claim with State Farm. State Farm timely accepted the claim and investigated it. The outcome of its initial adjustment of the claim was State Farm agreed to $755.02 in property damage, but because Hinojos had a $1,290 deductible, State Farm paid nothing. Hinojos requested a second inspection and State Farm agreed to $3,859.22 in damages then but paid $1,995.11 after the subtracting depreciation and the $1,290 deductible. Not satisfied with this result, Hinojos hired the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm and suit was filed. Some fifteen months after suit was filed State Farm invoked appraisal. The appraisal award came in at $38,269.95 replacement cost value and $26,259.86 actual cash value in property damage. State Farm paid $22,974.75 on the award, which was the replacement cost value minus depreciation, the deductible, and the prior payment. This payment was made some two and one-half years after Hinojos submitted his claim. After payment on the award, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that timely payment of the award precluded Hinojos’ TPPCA damages. The Chad T. Wilson Law Firm argued that State Farm was subject to liability because State Farm had not made any payments within the timelines set out in Section 542.057 or that State Farm was liable for interest on the difference between what State Farm had paid on the claim and the amount of the appraisal award. The trial court granted summary judgment against Hinojos and the court of appeals affirmed two and a half years later. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Reaffirming its holdings in Barbara Technologies and Alvarez v. State Farm Lloyds, 601 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. 2020) (per curium) the Hinojos Court held that State Farm paying the Hinojos appraisal award did not preclude Hinojos from pursuing TPPCA damages against State Farm. Better still, the Court went further. Recognizing that insurance companies could initially make a nominal payment toward a valid claim and avoid TPPCA damages by later paying an appraisal award, the Hinojos Court held that to be reasonable the initial claim payment must “roughly correspond to the amount owed on the claim.” Therefore, in the future when an appraisal award comes in several times higher than the initial claim payment, the Texas policyholder can sue for TPPCA damages on the difference between the initial claim payment and the amount of the award. Not only will this opinion allow policyholders to secure TPPCA damages for underpaid claims after appraisal, but it should also incentivize insurance companies to make valid claim payments at the inception of the claim.

Since 2005 I have dedicated my practice solely to representing policyholders in first-party cases and contract disputes. Over the years I have attended countless industry events where this person or that person gets on stage and pounds their chest talking about what they can do for policyholders. It is one thing to talk about what you can do for policyholders, but it is another thing altogether to actually do something for policyholders. Chad T. Wilson Law Firm actually did something for policyholders. Because the system was not fair to policyholders, we kept fighting this case, even after losing at the trial court and the court of appeals. We took the case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court and we won! This Hinojos decision marks a great day for all policyholders. Thanks to Andrew Bender for his appellate work in this case and to Sharon McCally who made the argument before the Texas Supreme Court.

Frozen pipe bursts wreak havoc in Texas

Texas has recently experienced winter weather not seen in ages. Temperatures fell to minus 2 degrees in some of the hardest-hit areas. Power suppliers never prepared to withstand these conditions.  Power outages across the state left almost all Texans to struggle with the cold. The combination of freezing weather and power outages caused plumbing and frozen pipes to burst and damage homes, businesses, schools, and churches.

Texans are strong and will recover but it will take time.  The scale of property damage from this winter event has never been seen before and insurers are struggling to meet the volume of insurance claims coming in.  The queue is long and insureds are having to wait weeks for their insurance company’s first inspection.

If you are a property owner, home, or business, your insurance policy specifies your responsibilities when you have a claim, notify the insurance company of your claim and mitigate the damage.  TAKE PICTURES, SHOOT VIDEOS, KEEP RECEIPTS.  Try to capture the entire state of damage, you can never have too many pictures.  With a backlog of claims, many Texans have had to start moving wet carpets and sheetrock out before their insurer’s first visit.  Ask your carrier if there are any specific requests they have to document the damage during remediation.

All insureds’ policies are unique but are derived from the same general forms approved by the Texas Department of Insurance.  Each carrier has its own name for each of the forms and variations of the same.  Most of these are “all-risk” or “named peril.”  If you don’t have an “all-risk” policy, your agent would have discussed other options which may include the accidental discharge of water or the option to add accidental discharge of water to your policy.  Read this section and be familiar with the terms; make sure the adjustment of your claim complies with those terms. Make certain to document everything. Here are some good guidelines to plan for filing your insurance claim:

• Start a journal documenting your insurance claim that includes dates, conversations, names, and contact information related to your insurance claim
• Collect receipts showing payment for damaged property.
• Collect evidence of loss and store it in a safe place.
• Take pictures and videos of the property damage.
• Get your insurance claim submitted on time.

For more tips visit: findlaw.com

SHOULD I HIRE AN INSURANCE ATTORNEY?

If you think your insurance policy covers your loss and your insurer doesn’t, or if you feel the damage you sustained is far more than what your insurance company compensates you for, or if your carrier neglected your claim altogether, then the Texas Insurance Code allows recovery of “actual damages, plus court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees” and if the insurer acted in bad faith you may pursue an award of up to “three times the number of actual damages.”

If you’re unsure of whether or not your situation warrants filing a claim against your homeowner’s insurance company, contact us. Free consultation. No recovery equals no fee.

Frozen Pipes Criple Texas

As Texas recovers from the arctic blast, pipe problems will remain an issue for many Texans. San Antonio alone reported more than 10,000 claims related to frozen pipes or pipe leaks. In Houston, city and county leaders on Friday said tens of thousands of area residents and business owners suffered burst water pipes or other damages from the winter storm, Uri, resulting in property damage likely costing tens of millions of dollars. A federal disaster declaration, which President Joe Biden said he will sign, could free up money to reimburse affected residents, as well.

When it comes to water leaks from broken or frozen pipes, our attorneys have in-depth experience handling these types of denied homeowners insurance claims. One client of ours, from the Dallas area, experienced a pipe burst in their upstairs bathroom which caused water damage to the first floor of their home.

Initially, their insurer (Farmers Insurance) sent an adjuster that determined that the damage could be repaired for the cost of their deductible. When our client’s questioned the insurance about this estimate, they hired an engineer to back up their first adjuster’s findings. Unable to make the necessary repairs with this amount, our client hired us to represent them and go after their insurer for a full recovery.

Our third-party adjustor found damage to the flooring and a kitchen cabinet, thousands of dollars in damage, that the original adjuster and engineer missed. Upon receipt of those findings, we filed suit with Farmers Insurance. With the evidence collected our case was stronger than the insurer wanted to contend with and ultimately settled out of court. Originally the insurer had agreed to cover the cost of the sheetrock, but after our findings, we were able to get them to pay enough to cover the cost of the damaged flooring and kitchen cabinetry. We were able to secure the essential funds for our client to make the necessary repairs to their home and get back to life as usual.

Texas does not see cold weather like what we just experienced. Our infrastructure was not ready for the intense cold. Many homes experienced catastrophic damage to their homes and property. To battle the slew of misinformation out there, here are a few things you should know about frozen or broken pipes in general.

What You Should Know

Homeowners insurance typically covers damage that results from broken pipes. 

What if my house is flooding? Water damage from a pipe burst is typically covered under a homeowner’s policy. Flood water damage, including excess groundwater, is not covered by a typical homeowners or renters insurance policy. The homeowner needs a separate flood insurance policy to claim damage on the effects of water egressing or discharging back into the home.

What if I rent? Renters insurance should cover water damages to your personal property from broken or ruptured pipes, but if damages are caused by water backing up in a drain or suction pump you will not be covered without having purchased additional coverage. Renters do not usually need to worry about the damage to their homes. That should be covered by their landlords’ insurance policy.

What if my ceiling collapses? Homeowners insurance does cover sudden and accidental water damage that may result in interior damage. One reason that insurers may deny a claim would be if a filer knew about prior structural decay or damage in the home before the collapse.

Texas Property Insurance Lawyers

Has your homeowner’s or commercial business insurance water claim been denied? We can help. Representing thousands of clients against big insurance companies, our insurance claims attorneys aggressively protect the rights of the policyholder. Our consultations are free, and you owe us nothing until we win your case. Contact us today.