Close this search box.

How insurance claims will become litigation claims from the Texas ice storm


How insurance claims will become litigation claims from the Texas ice storm

There is strong potential for bad faith litigation against insurance providers following the Texas ice storm, involving claims that those carriers have not upheld their end of the contract.

Roadside view of Highlands at Westridge Community covered by heavy snow on February in Texas after winter storm.

Property damage claims from the devastating winter storm that rampaged across Texas last month and left millions without power as temperatures plummeted to single digits are pouring in and could surpass any amount generated by an event, according to a recent story by Jason Grant.

“Texans are calling their homeowner’s insurance in droves and opening up claims based on the property damage that resulted from the weather and power outages,” says John Kelly, a practicing attorney and insurance law expert at Kelly Law Team in Phoenix, Arizona.

“Many are dealing with unexpected and extensive damage, including water damage from frozen piping,” he said.

Many insurance companies have denied coverage on the damage, leaving homeowners with service bills and repairs that often cost thousands of dollars, Kelly explained.

A wave of lawsuits are coming

“Attorneys will be reviewing the policies to determine if they can force the insurance companies to cover the damage,” he said. “An insurance policy, which is a contract, will often have extensive exclusions to coverage that consumers are often surprised by and understandably upset [about],“ he continued.

In fact, there will be a growing number of lawsuits filed by individuals and groups in the coming days and weeks, Kelly predicted.

“It will take months and likely years before the merits of cases will be heard and ruled upon by judges and juries, however resolutions short of trial can come for individuals who have valid claims within weeks,” Kelly said.

According to Kelly, attorneys need to focus on the potential for bad faith litigation against insurance providers, involving claims that those carriers have not upheld their end of the contract.

“The relationship between an insurance company and the insured person is a first-party relationship, which obligates the insurer to a higher standard of care to adhere to the terms of the contract,” Kelly said.

“This means that the contractual language, where vague, should be construed in favor of the consumer,” he explained.

As a result, homeowners need to be aware of the contract they have with the insurance company, he continued. This means that it is a good idea to get a full copy of the insurance policy they have signed and read over any exclusions.

“If their claim is denied, the adjuster should be able to point them to the particular exclusion or language they are basing the denial upon,” Kelly said. “It is important to read and understand the exact language that is being used to deny the coverage. This will help attorneys evaluate whether it is possible to pursue a remedy.”

Texas counties qualifying for FEMA assistance

A total of 108 Texas counties (highlighted with a red circle) have qualified for disaster assistance through FEMA due to the severe winter storms, writes ALM Intelligence analyst Mark Moore.

According to the FEMA site, “disaster assistance may include financial assistance for temporary lodging and home repairs, low-interest loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster.”

Requests for federal assistance (see here) are to supplement insurance claims, which requestors must file with their carriers as soon as possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote