Category: Insurance Claim Lawsuits

Insurance companies exist to provide an individual or entity financial protection or reimbursement from loses. These types of contracts can be full of confusing and sometimes conflicting information as well as fine print the average person may not be aware of. Although the companies are supposed to protect their clients, often they will deny, delay, or dispute claims to prevent having to provide compensation. The attorneys of Raizner Slania file lawsuits against these insurance companies acting in bad faith and fight for their client’s right to reimbursement.


Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Ohio Condominium Owners Association Files Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Raizner Law has filed a hail damage insurance lawsuit on behalf of an Ohio condominium owners association against Allstate Insurance Company after its insurance claim was wrongfully denied.

The property consists of 13 condominium buildings with approximately 140 units. On May 30, 2015, a wind and hailstorm swept through the area and pelted the property with hail one-inch in diameter. The wind and hail caused substantial damage to the property, including damage to the siding, roof structures, and HVAC units. Our client reported the hailstorm damage to Allstate and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy.

In response to the claim, Allstate assigned the claim to a claims representative located in Irving, Texas. In turn, the claims representative engaged the help of an engineering firm to evaluate the damage. The investigation of the property only lasted approximately one hour and no investigation of the roof was conducted. The engineering firm was not hired to investigate the damages, but rather the exact date the damage occurred to determine whether or not the damage occurred during the coverage period. The engineering firm relied on “observation reports” from “storm spotters” throughout the United States, which are “not official records” but were “summarized and eventually reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).” However, the engineering firm did not provide any of those “observation reports,” records, or other NCDC data in support of its conclusions.

Based solely on these observation reports, Allstate denied the insurance claim alleging the damage occurred outside of the coverage period. Allstate did not provide any supporting documentation for its conclusion.

Allstate Violated Ohio Insurance Law

Ohio law requires Allstate to act in good faith in handling and paying the claims of its insured. The requirement to act in good faith includes both the duty to investigate in good faith and provide a reasonable justification for denial. Allstate failed to exercise good faith in the processing of a claim.

Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuits

Policyholders that regularly pay their premium deserve full coverage pursuant to their policies. Insurance companies that wrongfully deny valid claims need to be held accountable for their actions. If your insurance company has wrongfully denied your condominium owners association insurance claim, contact Raizner Law today for a free consultation to discuss your case.

Hail Damage Insurance Denials

Dallas Property Owners Facing Bad Faith Insurance Denials

The Dallas-Fort Worth Area is no stranger to storms. The region is often at the center of large thunderstorms, including regular hailstorms. Even though this area regularly receives extreme weather, little could have prepared Dallas for the hailstorm that swept through the city last June. For many commercial property owners, delayed, underpaid, or outright denied insurance claims remain a constant reminder of the storm.

In the early morning hours of June 6, 2018, a severe thunderstorm swept through the Dallas-Fort Worth Area. The storm split right over Collin County, Texas, and the westernmost cell moved south-southwestward. The cell dropped large hail stones from southeast Denton County into northwest Dallas County and eastern Tarrant County until it finally reached Arlington, Texas. The storm was so loud that many Dallas-Fort Worth residents mistook the pounding hail for intruders or gunshots.

While some areas only saw hail the size of half an inch in diameter, hail the size of tennis balls was reported just east of Arlington. Overall, an estimated 20,000 structures were damaged in the storm. Unfortunately for property owners, insurance companies are utilizing a variety of bad faith tactics to reduce or completely deny valid claims.

Hail Damage Insurance Denials

Anytime there is a natural disaster or extreme weather event, insurance companies stand to lose a lot of money. Insurance companies are first and foremost a business, so when faced with large-scale disasters, they do anything they can to limit payouts. Some of the bad faith tactics insurance companies use to wrongfully deny valid property damage claims include:

  • Blaming the damage on inadequate maintenance
  • Wrongly claiming the amount of damage is less than the deductible
  • Misinterpreting the policy to claim the damage isn’t covered when in fact it is

What Property Owners Can Do

If you regularly pay your premium, you deserve full coverage under your policy. If your insurance company is delaying, underpaying, or outright denying your claim, Raizner Law can help. Our experienced insurance lawyers take on large insurance companies to get our clients what they are rightfully owed under their policies. If you suffered damage during the Dallas hail storm and your claim has been denied, contact us today to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case.

Hurricane Harvey Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Houston Commercial Property Owner Files Hurricane Harvey Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Raizner Law has filed a Hurricane Harvey insurance lawsuit on behalf of a commercial property owner in Houston, Texas against Twin City Fire Insurance Company after its insurance company was wrongfully denied.

The property is a one-story commercial building with 12,214 square feet of interior space. Unfortunately, on August 26, 2017, Hurricane Harvey swept through Houston, Texas and caused significant damage to the property. Sizable portions of the building’s roof and exterior were compromised, causing damage to the interior of the property, including the ceilings and insulation. Immediately after the storm, the plaintiff alerted Twin City of the damage and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to its policy.

Twin City’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful denial that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damage, and meteorological data from Hurricane Harvey supporting the plaintiff’s claim. Twin City unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save the insurer hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims payouts for Hurricane Harvey property damage and business interruption.

Specifically, just days after Harvey ravaged the property and the claim was submitted, on September 6, 2017, Twin City had already written off the plaintiff’s claim and issued a preliminary denial letter that offered no reasonable explanation of the facts underlying the denial and that failed to tie any relevant facts to the three pages of policy provisions cited by Twin City. Remarkably, after citing various exclusions and ignoring the relevant coverage, the letter claims no lost business income will be issued under the policy because the shutdown of the plaintiff’s business “was not due to direct physical damage by a covered cause of loss.”

Weeks after the plaintiff submitted the claim, on September 24, 2017, a “damage specialist”, inspected the property to determine the “cause of loss” that resulted from Harvey’s hurricane-force wind and water. Days later, on October 4, 2017, another denial letter was issued which was seemingly identical to the prior denial issued just days after the storm. Again, however, Twin City refused to acknowledge the damage caused by Hurricane Harvey in the midst of the catastrophe. Twin City did not prepare any scopes or estimates of damages and/or refused to provide them to the insured.

The plaintiff was forced to hire its own consultants to assess the damage properly and provide their own estimates of damages to Twin City in the face of the company’s refusal to do so. After Twin City ignored its obligations, forcing the plaintiff to demand the company reassess the damages, another inspection took place on June 19, 2018 by a preferred vendor. This inspection also ignored obvious and extensive damages Harvey caused to the property and was conducted with the intent to simply rubber stamp the prior denial of the plaintiff’s claim for a second time. The inspectors were not qualified to assess the type of damages to a commercial property like the one at issue and, as a result, the inspections were haphazard, rushed, and incomplete. Twin City ultimately denied the plaintiff’s claim.

Twin City Violated The Texas Insurance Code

Our client cites numerous violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including failure to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim, failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt investigation of the claim, and refusal to pay the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.

Filling Your Hurricane Harvey Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Insurance companies have been reluctant to pay out on valid claims in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. If your Hurricane Harvey claim is being denied or undervalued, contact Raizner Law today to see how we can help you obtain your rightful compensation under your policy.

hail damage insurance lawsuit

Raizner Law Files Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit On Behalf of Dallas Motel Owner

Raizner Law has filed a hail damage insurance lawsuit on behalf of a Dallas, Texas motel owner against United Specialty Insurance Company, Strata Claims Management, LLC, and Engle Martin & Associates, LLC.

April 2017 Hail Storm

On April 25, 2017, a hail storm swept through Dallas, Texas. The hail storm caused severe damage to the property, including damage to the roof, HVAC system, exterior, and interior of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with United Specialty alerting them to the damage. In response to the catastrophe claim, United Specialty assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequate and improperly trained. More specifically, United assigned the plaintiff’s claim to Strata for adjustment, and Strata in turn assigned the claim to an employee to adjust the damages. Strata then assigned the plaintiff’s claim to Engle Martin as independent adjusters, who assigned an employee to handle adjusting the claims.

United Specialty, with ultimate decision-making authority and acting on its own accord and through its agents Strata, Engle Martin, and their employees, failed to conform to proper claim settlement practices in Texas, failed to properly supervise its designated representatives, and unreasonably denied and delayed full and fair claim payment. Specifically, Strata, Engle Martin, and their employees failed to perform a thorough investigation of the claim. Engle Martin’s employee inspected the property on June 26, 2017, and performed a cursory, substandard inspection. On July 5, 2017, this employee prepared an estimate of covered damages that grossly undervalued what should be covered and paid under the policy.

Upon reviewing the gross undervaluation of the damage, the plaintiff hired its own licensed public adjuster to evaluate the claim. It was only after learning the plaintiff had hired a public adjuster that the defendants decided to retain an engineering firm to inspect the property. The engineering firm performed a “Window Damage Evaluation Report,” dated August 21, 2017. This report found “none of the windows have sustained any wind or hail impact-related damage” and that condensation was due to “seal failure” consistent with “age-related deterioration of the windows.” In short, the engineering firm’s report was an unreasonable and pretextual rubber-stamp of the unreasonable investigation made and underpayment already found by Strata and Engle Martin.

Unfortunately, the defendants have delayed payment for the plaintiff’s necessary and covered property repairs under the insurance policy. Given the repeated delays of payment, the plaintiff has been subjected to significant economic impact, worry, distress, and continuing economic and physical damage. Because of the delays, denials, and underpayment, the plaintiff has been unable to make necessary repairs to the property, which has resulted in further damages, including additional interior and roof damage, among others.

United Specialty Acted In Bad Faith

Our client alleges United Specialty acted in bad faith and cites numerous violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including refusal to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, misrepresentation of an insurance policy under which it affords property coverage to the policyholder, and knowingly committing the foregoing acts with actual knowledge of the falsity, unfairness, or deception of the foregoing acts.

Get Help With Your Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit

Policyholders deserve full protection under their policies. Many insurance companies prey upon uninformed policyholders who are unaware of their legal rights. If your insurance company is denying your claim or misrepresenting the terms of your policy, contact the hail damage insurance lawyers at Raizner Law today for a free consultation to get help with your hail damage insurance lawsuit.

Condominium Association Lawyers

Raizner Law Files Lawsuit On Behalf of Dallas Condominium Owner’s Association

Raizner Law has filed an insurance lawsuit on behalf of a condominium owner’s association against Maxum Indemnity Company after its wind damage claim was wrongfully denied.

March 2018 Windstorm

In March 2018, a windstorm swept through Dallas and caused significant damage to the subject condominium property. Large portions of the property’s roof were compromised, causing substantial interior damage. In total, the property suffered damage to the roof, HVAC systems, windows, and interiors. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Maxum and asked that the cost of the repairs be covered pursuant to the policy.

Maxum utilized a preferred vendor to handle the adjustment of the claim. The vendor was disorganized, rife with delays, and left many of the insured’s questions unanswered. The plaintiff hired its own representative to assist with the claims process, but Maxum’s vendor continuously ignored the plaintiff’s representative in an effort to intentionally mislead the insured about the claims process and ultimately deny the claim. Maxum wrongly claimed the damage was caused by a “clogged roof drain” and therefore was not covered under the policy. To this day, the plaintiff has not been properly compensated for the cost of repairs to the property and has suffered extreme economic hardship as a result.

Maxum Acted In Bad Faith

Our client cites numerous violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including failure to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim, failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the denial of a claim, misrepresentation of the policy under which it provides property coverage to the insured, and refusal to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. Our client also alleges Maxum violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Condominium Association Lawyers

When your insurance company does not act quickly or fairly, your business may suffer. If the insurance company acts in bad faith, you may be able to recover not only the costs of repairs and replacements covered in your policy, but also other costs incurred due to their dishonest actions. Getting the compensation you are entitled to should not be an uphill battle. Contact a condominium association lawyer at Raizner Law today to protect your rights and see how we can help.

Hurricane Harvey insurance lawsuit

Padre Island, Texas Hotel Owner Files Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit

Raizner Law has filed a Hurricane Harvey insurance lawsuit on behalf of a Padre Island, Texas hotel owner against Greenhill Group LLC, First Specialty Insurance Corporation, Evanston Insurance Company, and Scottsdale Insurance Company. Our client alleges its Hurricane Harvey insurance claim was wrongfully denied under Texas law.

Our client owns a six-story hotel situated on 126,354 square feet of land with 79,810 square feet of interior space. The building is a well-known hotel and conference facility in the Corpus Christi area, and it contains guest rooms, meeting/reception areas, office space, a fitness area, laundry facilities, a restaurant and bar, and kitchen facilities.

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey, recognized as one of the most devastating natural disasters in United States history, made landfall on the Texas coast in San Patricio County and Aransas County as a Category 4 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 132 miles per hour were reported in the same area as the property. As a result of Harvey’s extreme winds and rain when it hit Nueces County and specifically the property, the hotel suffered substantial damage. Sizeable portions of the property’s roof were compromised by wind, which in turn caused damage to the interior of the property, electrical components, ceilings, flooring, and HVAC.

Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed insurance claims with the carriers. As the primary insurer on the property, First Specialty took the lead during the claims handling process; however, its claims-handling process resulted in wrongful denials and gross underpayments that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damages, and meteorological data from Hurricane Harvey supporting the plaintiff’s claim. First Specialty unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save the insurance company and the other carriers millions of dollars in damages to the property and the business.

Specifically, First Specialty assigned unqualified consultants and adjusters to handle the claim and ignored damages the adjusters initially accepted. First Specialty retained a preferred vendor to handle the initial adjustment. After an inspection on September 13, 2017, First Specialty’s adjuster verbally confirmed coverage and damages of millions of dollars to the building structure alone; however, those amounts were never paid. Rather, First Specialty sent additional consultants out in order to minimize the claim payout to the plaintiff. On September 20, 2017, additional adjusters were sent to the property and admitted they personally observed substantial Hurricane Harvey wind damage.

Acting with authority on behalf of the carriers, the adjusters conceded that millions of dollars were owed on the claim and verbally offered an undisputed amount to pay the insured’s claim. Despite this legally binding agreement, the carriers reneged on their promise, and continued to delay the claim until its partial denial in May 2018. To this day, the plaintiff has not been properly paid for property damage, and has suffered significant economic hardship not only in the cost of repairs but also in lost business income.

Violations of the Texas Insurance Code

Our client cites numerous violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including failure to promptly provide a reasonable explanation for the denial of a claim and misrepresenting the terms of the policy under which it affords property coverage to the plaintiff. Our client also claims the carriers violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

Fighting For Hurricane Harvey Victims

It’s a shame that Hurricane Harvey victims have to fight so hard for the compensation they are rightly entitled to under their insurance policies. Raizner Law is helping Hurricane Harvey victims with bad faith insurance claims. If your Hurricane Harvey insurance claim has been denied or underpaid, contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case.