Ending a putative class action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined policy language and two statutes to hold that an insurer does not owe sales tax on top of an actual cash value payment. The citation is Taylor v. Root Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18240 (5th Cir. July 24, 2024). About The Author
The Southern District of Texas recently held that an appraisal award did not establish liability for a covered loss under the policy. In Hoff v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 5192013 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2023), Meridian Security Insurance (“Meridian”) insured Flemming Hoff (“Hoff”). After filing suit, Hoff requested an appraisal pursuant to the following policy language: If you [Hoff] and we [Meridian] disagree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will choose a competent and impartial appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request from the other. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or…
COVID-19 business interruption claimants have had few state appellate court decisions upon which to rely. Louisiana produced one such decision in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 939 (La. App. 4 Cir., June 15, 2022). The insurer prevailed in the trial court in a dispute over whether coronavirus constituted “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. The insured restaurant appealed. Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeal’s opinion became widely-cited by other COVID-19 business interruption claimants. The insurer appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court and Cajun Conti became a widely-followed dispute. As discussed below, the Court of Appeal’s analysis was out of step with the…
Ever since the Texas Supreme Court changed the landscape of Texas law regarding appraisal in Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019) and Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2019), practitioners and courts have been struggling to apply the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings. Barbara Technologies and Ortiz answered some questions but raised others. About The Authors
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a pair of decisions that allowed policyholders to prosecute claims under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”) even after the insurers paid appraisal awards. The decisions were a modification of law and so post-appraisal litigation has and continues to evolve. One such example is a recent decision from District Judge Tipton of the Southern District of Texas in White v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, which has provided a potential road map for insurers looking to curb post-appraisal demands and litigation after the payment of an appraisal award.[1] About The Author
In the continuing saga of what can and cannot be appraised in a property insurance appraisal, the Tenth Circuit, in contrast to many other courts, has ruled appraisers can determine coverage issues. In Bonbeck Parker, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29607 (10th Cir. October 1, 2021), a hailstorm damaged three buildings covered under a commercial property insurance policy. A dispute between the insured and insurer arose over whether the hailstorm caused all of the damage claimed. The insurer paid some of the claimed damage, but denied coverage for other claimed damage, asserting that it was caused by non-covered causes such as wear and tear. The insured invoked appraisal. About The Author
In Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed liability under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (the “TPPCA”) when an insurer timely pays only part of a claim.[1] As demonstrated in Hinojos, disputes as to TPPCA liability typically arise in the context of appraisal and the payment of an award. In a fairly short opinion, the Court held that timely payments less than the full amount of the ultimate insurance claim do not satisfy an insurer’s duties under the TPPCA. However, the Court also reiterated that payment of an appraisal award outside the TPPCA’s deadlines does not satisfy a policyholder’s burden to prove an actual TPPCA violation. About The Author
We don’t usually cover cases dealing with Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program, but a Texas case decided by the federal Court of Appeals earlier this month addresses a broader issue – where the policyholder has multiple policies covering the same property against mutually exclusive risks, such as an SFIP covering flood and a homeowner’s policy covering wind, can his or her recovery ever exceed the total loss amount. In Lowery v. Fidelity Nat’l. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6848323, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19443 (5th Cir., Nov. 6, 2015), a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit answered no, in reliance on the insurance principle that bars a double recovery. The…
Texas has yet to address whether it recognizes a sophisticated insured exception to the doctrine of contra proferentem, and the state’s federal Court of Appeals declined an opportunity to make a prediction about that question in mid-August of this year in Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Perraud, 2015 WL 4747318, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14349 (5thCir., Aug. 12, 2015). The judges split 2-1 on whether the contract of insurance was ambiguous in nature, but all three were unwilling to reach the sophisticated insured issue. The case involved a director’s and officer’s (D&O) liability policy, but the issue implicates first-party coverage as well. It also contains a useful survey of the approaches that courts have taken to this exception from…
On Tuesday of this week, a unanimous panel of Texas’ intermediate level appellate court rejected arguments that an appraisal award that set forth lump sum replacement cost, depreciation, and actual cash value amounts for real property, personal property, and additional living expense was not sufficiently “itemized.” In Cantu v. Southern Ins. Co., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8847 (Aug. 25, 2015), it also rejected the policyholder’s contention that a court, having appointed an umpire when the two appraisers were unable to agree, was without authority to remove him and select a replacement. The decision is not currently reported on WestLaw. The insured’s home was damaged by 2011’s massive Bastrop County Complex Fire. After disputes arose over the amount of loss, the…
