Appellate Victory over State Farm

At the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, we fight for policyholders—and we win. In a pivotal case, we secured a significant victory against State Farm Lloyds, ensuring justice for our client, Alice Ladkin, an 85-year-old widow who simply wanted her rightful insurance benefits. The Second Court of Appeals of Texas ruled in favor of Ms. Ladkin, affirming that insurance companies must uphold their obligations to policyholders.

The Case Background

In July 2019, Ms. Ladkin filed a claim with State Farm Lloyds after a storm caused wind and hail damage to her home, leading to water leaks in her living-room ceiling. Instead of honoring the claim, State Farm disputed the extent of the damage, asserting that the cost of repairs fell below the deductible. Even after an independent appraisal confirmed that a full roof replacement was necessary, State Farm still refused to pay, citing preexisting conditions.

The Legal Battle

Our legal team presented compelling evidence that State Farm failed to conduct a thorough investigation and acted in bad faith by refusing a legitimate claim. The jury sided with Ms. Ladkin, issuing a strong verdict:

  • $40,000 in actual damages for home repairs.

  • $35,000 in treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for State Farm’s unfair treatment.

  • Attorney’s fees to ensure Ms. Ladkin wasn’t burdened with legal costs for fighting a rightful claim.

State Farm’s Appeal & The Court’s Ruling

State Farm attempted to overturn the verdict, employing several arguments in an attempt to reduce its liability. Among their primary claims, they contended that Ms. Ladkin should not recover damages exceeding the appraisal award, and they argued that the evidence presented did not justify the treble damages awarded. Additionally, they challenged the trial court’s exclusion of certain expert testimony, asserting that it would have bolstered their position. Finally, they claimed that the appellate attorney’s fees granted to Ms. Ladkin’s legal team were excessive.

Despite their efforts, the Second Court of Appeals found that most of these arguments lacked merit. The court upheld the jury’s findings regarding actual and treble damages, reaffirming that the insurer’s bad faith conduct warranted the significant financial penalties. The only aspect of the ruling that required further review pertained to the appellate attorney’s fees, which were remanded for further proceedings. The core takeaway? State Farm could not escape accountability for its failure to honor a valid claim.

This ruling reinforces a vital principle: insurers who engage in bad faith tactics cannot expect to evade justice through legal maneuvers. This case sets a clear precedent that insurance companies must be held accountable when they attempt to shirk their obligations to policyholders.

Why This Win Matters

This victory extends far beyond one policyholder—it’s a crucial win for all homeowners and business owners who rely on their insurance policies to protect them in times of crisis. Far too often, insurers deploy delay tactics, underpay claims, or outright deny coverage, leaving vulnerable homeowners to bear the financial burden alone. This case shines a light on those practices and underscores the importance of holding insurers accountable.

The implications of this decision are profound. First, it reassures policyholders that they have the right to challenge unfair claim denials. Many homeowners assume they have no recourse when an insurer disputes their claim, but this case proves otherwise. When policyholders stand up for their rights—and have a legal team committed to their fight—they can prevail against even the largest insurance providers.

Furthermore, this ruling puts insurance companies on notice. They cannot simply deny claims in bad faith, hoping policyholders will accept their decision without contest. When they refuse to conduct fair investigations or attempt to shift the burden onto homeowners, they risk severe legal and financial consequences.

For homeowners, this means greater confidence in pursuing claims when they are wronged. It reminds them that insurance policies are contracts, and those contracts must be honored. This ruling empowers individuals to push back against unfair practices and seek the compensation they are rightfully owed.

At Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, we remain dedicated to advocating for policyholders. This victory is a testament to our commitment to ensuring justice prevails, and we will continue to stand up against bad faith insurance practices to protect homeowners and business owners alike.

Is Your Insurance Company Giving You the Runaround? Let’s Talk.

If you’re facing unjust claim denials or delays, don’t settle for less. Contact us today for expert legal representation.

Call us today to schedule your free consultation.

Major Victory Over State Farm

SunisaLeeMural Chad T. Wilson Law Firm

We are proud to announce a major victory for our client, Cheu Lee, a first generation Hmong American who came to the U.S. as a Vietnam War refugee in 1976. Since then, he has worked tirelessly to build a better life, culminating in the ownership of a commercial building in his community—a building proudly adorned with a mural of his granddaughter, Olympic gold medalist Sunisa Lee.

Mr. Lee’s case involved State Farm’s failure to pay a windstorm claim, which left his building with extensive interior damage. State Farm failed to honor his claim, leaving his businesses—including a tax accounting office, the Hmong Pages newspaper, and his wife’s dance studio—at a standstill. This building represented more than just a place of business. It was the culmination of a lifetime of hard work and a symbol of pride for both Cheu and the Hmong community.

Cheu’s dedication during this case was extraordinary. Attorney Hunter Odom recalls, “You could tell this was more than just a court case to Mr. Lee.  He was early to arrive at the courthouse every morning, despite serious personal obligations that would have prevented most from attending, and he never once complained.” Mr. Lee’s perseverance certainly paid off! With this compensation, Mr. Lee can now repair his building and continue the work he’s spent his life building.

HUNTER ODOM

“When the clerk read the verdict, there was a feeling of immediate relief, followed almost instantaneously by appreciation from Mr. Lee.  He shook Jim’s hand and mine, and he left the courtroom facing us in thanks,” says attorney Hunter Odom. “Mr. Lee’s story is exactly why I became an attorney. He represents the American dream—hard work, resilience, and dedication to family. It was an honor to stand by him in this fight.”

Jim Smith, our local counsel, was integral to the success of this case. His expertise and dedication, alongside Hunter’s, helped ensure that justice was served, and Mr. Lee can begin recovering what he lost. This is more than just a legal victory—it’s a testament to the perseverance of the enduring strength of the American dream. Congratulations to Cheu Lee and his family.

At the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, we fight for clients like Cheu Lee, standing by them through every step of the legal process. This victory is about restoring what people like Mr. Lee have built and preserving what they’ve created for their families and communities. We are proud to help clients protect their dreams and rebuild their futures, one case at a time.

On June 7, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Texas Department of Insurance v. Stonewater Roofing, Ltd. Co., Case No. 22-0427. This case involved an issue important to the Texas insurance landscape: when does a contractor overstep boundaries and begin to engage in conduct that is in violation of the Public Insurance Adjusters Act?

It is important to note that this case started as a contract dispute between Stonewater Roofing and a commercial property owner and did not result from a TDI enforcement action against Stonewater. In fact, Stonewater voluntarily filed what is known in the legal field as a declaratory action to bring TDI into the dispute in an attempt to invalidate the relevant laws and regulations concerning public adjusters.

While this case was not explicitly an enforcement action against Stonewater, the issues addressed by the court are important to keep in mind for roofers and contractors to avoid issues that could come up when assisting insureds with insurance claims.

Legal and Regulatory Background

At issue in the declaratory action filed by Stonewater were two provisions under the Texas Insurance Code that pertain to public adjusters: Texas Insurance Code section 4102.051(a) concerning the licensing requirement for public adjusters, and section 4102.163(a) regarding the “dual-capacity” prohibition, which prevents an individual from both negotiating a claim and performing the ensuing repair work. These two provisions are part of the broader set of laws known as the Public Insurance Adjusters Act, passed in 2003.  

Stonewater’s Actions at Issue

Built Up Roofing

The court focused on specific concerns with advertising on Stonewater’s website and language in its contract. Regarding advertising on its website, the court noted specific claims that Stonewater made including that it was an “Insurance Specialist” and “The Leader in Insurance Claim Approval.” The court viewed these advertising claims as promoting actions typically carried out by public adjusters in resolving claims on behalf of insureds, which was problematic because no one associated with Stonewater was a licensed public adjuster in the State of Texas.

In reviewing Stonewater’s contract at issue, the court expressed concerns about language used in that form contract. Specifically, the contract expressly authorized Stonewater to “negotiate” with the insurance company “on the customer’s behalf” and perform construction work “upon insurance approval.” Aside from using language very similar to that approved by TDI for public adjuster contracts, the Stonewater contract also clearly violated the “dual-capacity” prohibition outlined in Texas Insurance Code section 4102.163(a) that prevents an individual from serving as both the public adjuster and completing the repairs relating to the insurance claim.

Assisting an Insured with an Insurance Claim is of Course Permitted 

The court considered the dispute in the context of the First and Fourteenth Amendment under the United States Constitution. Specifically, Stonewater believed that the First Amendment came into play because even in the role of contractor, communications were necessary in resolving the claim. The question could be boiled down to this: did the laws and regulations pertaining to activities typical of a public adjuster work to prevent a contractor from assisting with a claim or discussing it with the insurance company? 

As mentioned above, the court took issue with advertising on Stonewater’s website and contract language that blurred the lines between the roles of a public adjuster and a contractor (and which gave rise to the First Amendment violation that was claimed by Stonewater). However, the court went out of its way to make it clear that a contractor still has an important role to play in assisting with an insurance claim. 

The court referenced guidance from TDI to make it clear that a contractor can discuss and answer questions regarding such things as the damage to the insured’s home, which materials are necessary to complete repairs, the cost and scope of repairs relating to the claim, and any supplements or clarifications regarding those repairs. The court specifically acknowledged that the applicable statutes did not prevent roofers or contractors from sharing their knowledge and expertise regarding repairs. The court also suggested that actions by a contractor such as discussing policy coverage or exclusions were not necessarily prohibited by the Public Insurance Adjusters Act (which would involve the First Amendment concerns Stonewater raised) but instead would only provide evidence of a possible improper agreement that might be in violation of the Act. 

Takeaways for Roofers and Contractors to Consider

Chad T. Wilson Law Firm - Roofing Contractors

The court’s opinion provides some important things to consider for contractors and roofers. While assisting an insured with an insurance claim is clearly permitted, and the experience a roofer/contractor has regarding determining the scope of damage and cost of repair is valuable to the process, a roofer/contractor should be careful to not undertake actions that might fall under the laws and regulations that apply to licensed public adjusters. 

A good place to start to make sure actions do not run against those laws and regulations is to consider guidance from TDI on the topic, which the court also referenced. Additionally, avoiding advertising that makes claims regarding success with insurance claims and getting insured’s the top dollar on the claim would help avoid these issues. Finally, reviewing existing contract language to avoid including words suggesting the contractor/roofer would “negotiate” or “advocate” on behalf of the insured in helping with the claim would be advisable.    

At the Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, we know that we each have a role to play in assisting policyholders to achieve a fair resolution of their insurance claims. Ensuring that state laws and regulations are complied with helps avoid any unforeseen issues that may compromise that goal that we all share. 

Is your claim being denied or underpaid? Call Chad T. Wilson Law Firm, PLLC.

Speak with one of our attorney if you’re having trouble getting your claim processed or if the insurance company is attempting to pay less for the claim than is reasonable.

Contact us: https://cwilsonlaw.com/contact-us/ 

Follow us on Social media: https://beacons.ai/chadtwilsonlaw

Contact our office locations to schedule a free consultation.


Chad T. Wilson is an attorney whose firm specializes in property insurance disputes.

Schedule a free Consultation

Texas insurance code

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.

Texas Jury Awards Damages To State Farm Policyholder

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.