Name: Raizner Slania LLP
Address: 2402 Dunlavy St Suite 300, Houston, TX, 77006, US
Telephone: 844-554-9099
Price range: Let Our Team Help You

An incredible amount of time, money, and resources go into maintaining an industrial building or warehouse. These operations can require great care as they often contain valuable inventory and equipment. When an unexpected disaster event, fire, or severe weather results in property damage, owners are forced to deal with the devastating loss in an instant.

Despite these unfortunate situations, industrial building owners may take comfort in knowing they have a comprehensive commercial property damage policy in place to help get their facilities back to working order after a catastrophic event. This isn’t always the case, however, as even with all of the proper safeguards in place, insurance companies may attempt to thwart the claims process for their own benefit. When these unfortunate situations happen, filing an insurance coverage lawsuit may be necessary to recover what is rightfully owed under a policy.

Damage to an industrial buildin g typically requires extensive and costly repairs to be made. The damage can also hinder or put the industrial property’s manufacturing capacity, work processes, and sales on hold indefinitely. This suspension of operations may also trigger the need for a business interruption claim to be filed. Protecting the valuable equipment and inventory from any further damage is a top priority in these scenarios. And, any stoppage or delays in production can severely harm business and customer relations.

While industrial building owners are working to get back on their feet as soon as possible after a devastating loss, commercial property insurers may be disputing, delaying, or denying a valid claim for damages. At Raizner Slania, our commercial insurance claims attorneys are all too familiar with the various ways insurers attempt to devalue claims for their own benefit. We’ve taken legal action against some of the largest companies and organizations in the world and won. Our law firm is one of the few that has successfully pursued bad faith claims involving complex properties like industrial buildings against insurance companies.

Some of the notable lawsuits our law firm has filed on behalf of industrial building owners include the following cases:

Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London – Brit Syndicate 2987, et al.
Fire Damage Lawsuit Against Rockhill Insurance Company, et al.
Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Acadia Insurance & Union Standard Insurance Group
Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Landmark American Insurance Company and Vericlaim, Inc.
Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against The Cincinnati Insurance Company
Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against The Netherlands Insurance Company
Wind and Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London – Brit Syndicate 2987 and Hibbs-Hallmark & Company

On May 5, 2017, a catastrophic fire broke out at the property. As a result, the business equipment on the property was severely damaged. In addition to damaged business equipment, the plaintiff lost extensive business income as a result of the fire damage to the property. Two pieces of industrial machinery were completely destroyed and two others sustained significant damage. The damaged machinery prevented the plaintiff from processing and preparing its scrap metal. Because of this, the plaintiff lost business on significant materials that could have been purchased and sold to mills for a profit in the course of ordinary business operations.

Soon after the fire, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim for substantial property damages and lost business income. The plaintiff asked that the cost of the damages be covered pursuant to the policy, but Lloyd’s has refused to make a full payment on the plaintiff’s claim. Lloyd’s conducted an unreasonable and inadequate investigation of the damages to the equipment and looked to find policy exclusions in order to deny the claim. Lloyd’s wrongfully denied, underpaid, and delayed plaintiff’s claim for actual damages to the property and lost business income. Specifically, Lloyd’s has chosen to continue to deny and delay timely payment of the damages.

Fire Damage Lawsuit Against Rockhill Insurance Company, International Insurance Company Hannover SE, Antares AUL 1274, Liberty Syndicated LIB 4472, and Vericlaim Inc

On January 1, 2017, the plaintiff’s property suffered severe damage from a fire that broke out on the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy. On February 14, 2017, authorized adjusting representatives from Vericlaim confirmed that the damages were covered under the policy and approved payment for the damage in an official insurance company estimate of damages. On the same day, plaintiffs accepted the estimate of damages creating a binding and enforceable agreement. This should have led to the conclusion of the claim.

In response to the fire claim, the carriers assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequately and improperly trained. In addition, these representatives violated standard insurance practices when directed by the carriers. Specifically, the claim was assigned to an adjuster who originally prepared the accepted estimate of damages. The carriers refused to honor their coverage representation, and the adjuster failed to stand by the commitment he had made on behalf of the carriers. As a result, the carriers crossly underpaid the claim and the plaintiff has still not been fully paid under the policy. The plaintiff was forced to hire a consultant to properly evaluate the property damage because the carriers refused to do so. Because of the carriers’ wrongful denials, the plaintiff has been unable to make necessary repairs to the property, which has caused additional damage.

Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit on Behalf of an Oklahoma Industrial Building Owner Against Acadia Insurance & Union Standard Insurance Group

On April 19, 2016, a severe wind and hailstorm swept through Durant, Oklahoma. The wind and hailstorm caused severe damage to the roof, HVAC, exteriors, and interiors of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim for the cost of repairs. In response to the claim, Acadia assigned representatives, adjusters, consultants, and agents to plaintiff’s file that were inadequate and improperly trained. Specifically, Union Standard and an employee out of Dallas, Texas mishandled the plaintiff’s claim. The employee conducted an unreasonable investigation of the cause and extent of damages, was improperly trained, and was not equipped to handle this type of claim.

In May 2016, an adjuster visited the property but failed to complete an adequate inspection and refused to acknowledge all the damages to the property. The employee ignored the facts supporting coverage, failed to give the plaintiff’s presentation proper consideration, and denied the true extent of damages covered by the policy. Instead, the employee retained consultants from a preferred vendor and was unnecessarily hostile to the insured in claim communications and investigation methods. The employee then utilized the preferred vendor’s report to make recommendations to Acadia on what portions of the claim to deny under the policy.

Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Landmark American Insurance Company and Vericlaim, Inc.

On March 23, 2016, a severe hailstorm swept through Dallas County. The storm caused significant damage to the roof, HVAC system, exterior, and interior of the commercial property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Landmark to cover the cost of repairs pursuant to the terms of its policy. In response to the claim, Landmark assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequate and improperly trained. More specifically, Landmark assigned the plaintiff’s claim to Vericlaim, which in turn assigned the claim to an employee.

The employee performed a substandard inspection of the property and did not prepare an estimate or scope of damage or failed to provide them to the plaintiff. Additionally, the employee failed to hire qualified experts to appropriately assess the damage. Although the employee was provided meteorological data supporting the claim and date of loss, he deceptively ignored the data. The employee was also given physical proof and building history establishing the legitimacy of the cause and extent of the loss, but he refused to consider this evidence. Verclaim and Landmark relied solely on the employee’s haphazard investigation to determine what amounts, if any, to pay on the claim. Vericlaim and Landmark grossly underpaid and wrongly denied the plaintiff’s claim before even finishing a thorough investigation.

Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company and Engle Martin & Associates

In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey came ashore as one of the most devastating hurricanes in U.S. history. Hurricane Harvey’s wind and rain continued to travel through the southeast part of Texas, inflicting billions of dollars in damages to private and public property all the way into Orange County and Vidor, Texas. As a result of Hurricane Harvey’s devastation, the plaintiff’s properties were substantially damaged by the storm. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed a Hurricane Harvey damage insurance claim with PLM, requesting that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to its policy.

PLM’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful refusal to pay and omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damages, and meteorological data supporting the plaintiff’s claim. PLM unreasonably pinned the losses on anything but the wind, an action designed to save PLM millions of dollars in insurance claims payouts. After cursory and substandard inspections, and more than seven months after the property was damaged, PLM denied the plaintiff’s claim in April 2018. The denial letter stated there was no wind damage to the roofs, there was no storm-created opening, and there was existing wear and tear. Our client rebutted these claims, and PLM allowed a second engineer to inspect the property. The second engineer also blamed the damage on anything except the catastrophic winds from Hurricane Harvey.

Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London

When Hurricane Harvey made landfall off the Texas coast in late August 2017, the storm’s extreme winds and rain caused substantial damage to our client’s commercial property. Wind compromised sizable portions of the property’s roof, which caused water intrusion and interior damage. Overall, the roof, insulation, ceilings, interiors, and electrical components of the structure were damaged. Despite substantial damage, the plaintiff felt fortunate to have an insurance policy that would cover the cost of repairs. Immediately after the storm, the plaintiff promptly filed a claim with Underwriters, alerting them to the extensive damages.

Unfortunately, Underwriters’ 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. Underwriters unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save the insurer hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the property and the business. The plaintiff hired its own public adjuster to estimate repair costs; however, Underwriters and its preferred vendor, Vericlaim, Inc., ignored the estimates provided by the public adjuster. Although Underwriters has, to date, provided no clear documentation of its inspection or findings, it denied the claim in full on December 26, 2017.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against The Cincinnati Insurance Company

On May 7, 2015, a severe hailstorm swept across Denton County. As a result, our client’s property suffered significant damage, including damage to the roof, HVAC, exteriors, and interiors of the property. Immediately upon discovering the hail damage, our client filed a commercial property damage insurance claim. In response to the claim, Cincinnati assigned representatives, adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequately and improperly trained. Additionally, Cincinnati assigned a local claims specialist who was not equipped to handle this type of claim.

The claims specialist refused to retain appropriate consultants to evaluate the claim, and as a result of the substandard investigation, the plaintiff’s claim was completely denied by Cincinnati. Because of this, our client was forced to retain an attorney to prosecute its claim for insurance benefits. Cincinnati’s denial of payment for necessary and covered repairs under the policy caused additional damages to the interior and significant economic impact.

Hurricane Harvey Insurance Lawsuit Against Hartford Fire Insurance Company

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey came ashore along the Texas coast and caused widespread devastation. Sizeable portions of the properties’ roofs and exterior were compromised, which in turn caused interior damage to ceilings, insulation, and flooring. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Hartford and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy. Hartford’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful denial that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damages, and meteorological data from Hurricane Harvey supporting the plaintiff’s claim.

Hartford conducted inspections that ignored obvious and extensive damages from Hurricane Harvey at the properties and were conducted with the intent to simply deny the claim. The inspectors were not qualified to assess the commercial property damages, and as a result, the inspections were haphazard, rushed, and incomplete. Hartford unreasonably stated in its reports that “the roofs had not been damaged by Harvey and no other storm-caused opening existed” in an effort to avoid contractual responsibilities and to save Hartford significant sums of money.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company

On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff’s property, a food distributorship building, was substantially damaged by a hailstorm that swept through Tarrant County. As a result, the roof, exteriors, interiors, business and personal property, and other machinery and equipment on the property sustained damage. Immediately after the storm, the plaintiff filed a hail damage commercial property insurance claim with Nationwide.

In response to the claim, Nationwide assigned representatives, adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s files that were inadequately and improperly trained. Specifically, Nationwide assigned the claim to a local adjuster who was not equipped to handle this type of claim. The local adjuster performed a haphazard inspection of the property and refused to acknowledge all of the damages despite the fact that the plaintiff pointed them out. Nationwide and the local adjuster performed an incomplete and unreasonable investigation of plaintiff’s claim, which is evidenced by the undervalued estimate of damages for the necessary repairs for the property. As a result of the haphazard inspection, misrepresentation, and inadequate investigation, the plaintiff’s claim was grossly underpaid.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against The Netherlands Insurance Company

On April 2, 2011, there was a severe wind and hailstorm in Tarrant County. As a result, our client’s property suffered significant damage including damage to the roof, HVAC, windows, exterior, interior, ceilings, furnishings, and more. Upon realizing the damage, the plaintiff filed a claim with Netherlands to recover for its damages.

Netherlands assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the file that were inadequately and improperly trained to handle this type of complex commercial property damage claim. The insurer assigned a local adjuster, who retained a consultant to assess damage to the property that was insufficiently trained and experienced to evaluate this type of damage. The local adjuster refused to conduct an adequate and objective investigation, and refused to provide a damage report or findings to our client until the claim was denied. Because of this, the plaintiff was forced to hire its own consultant to assess the obvious damages.

Wind and Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

On May 26, 2020, a wind and hailstorm struck the property, leaving it substantially damaged. Sizeable portions of the property’s roof were compromised by wind and rain, including the HVAC system. Upon discovering the damage, Plaintiff promptly filed a claim with Westchester, alerting them to the extensive damages. Westchester’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful denial that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damages, and meteorological data from Tropical Storm Imelda supporting Plaintiff’s claim. Westchester unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save the insurer hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the property and the business.

Westchester assigned an internal adjuster to handle the claim. However, he was unqualified and incapable of adequately assessing the damages to the property. Westchester’s adjuster and engineer inspected the property, but blamed the damages on anything except the severe wind and hail. In fact, the report noted wear and tear and pre-existing condition breaches. Westchester has ignored the scores of facts, witnesses, and meteorological data supporting the covered claim and instead unreasonably pinned the loss on causes that would exclude coverage.

Contact Raizner Slania Today & Start Building Your Case

Fill out this form to discuss your case with one of our experienced attorneys
or call us at 844-554-9099.

844-554-9099

Industrial Building: Lawsuits Filed

Table of Contents: