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

When an office building is impacted by a disaster, the aftermath can be incredibly expensive and devastating. Unexpected property damage can leave operations hindered causing significant financial losses for the commercial property owner. While it’s crucial to make repairs and solve the issue as quickly as possible, many hindrances can occur that can drag the recovery process out. One such hindrance that policyholders least expect occurs when their insurance provider wrongfully denies their valid claim. When this happens, legal action may be necessary.

Office building owners invest in comprehensive insurance coverage to protect not only the building but also important and often essential items contained and stored within it that are needed to successfully run their operations. Typically, commercial property policies will cover damage to the exterior of a building, interior structural damage, and destroyed or ruined inventory. Lost revenue incurred due to property damage is often covered by a business interruption policy, which works in tandem with commercial property insurance coverage.

Even with all the appropriate steps taken to obtain the right coverage for a commercial office building, insurance companies routinely attempt to avoid paying out on valid claims. Some insurers are notorious for utilizing tactics to wrongfully delay, deny, or grossly underpay claims that should be honored under their legally binding insurance policies. At Raizner Slania, our commercial insurance coverage attorneys know all too well just how upsetting and financially devastating this can be.

Our skilled litigation attorneys have become recognized as one of the top commercial property insurance law firms nationwide for cases involving property damage. These cases are often detail-oriented, extensive, and expert-intensive, and can result in legal action or litigation. We’ve represented clients in cases involving office buildings ranging from 20,000 square feet to multi-story office towers.

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

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
Wind and Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Zurich American Insurance Company
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against American National Property and Casualty Company
Tornadic Wind Damage Lawsuit Against Underwriters at Lloyd’s London
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against American Economy Insurance Company, et al.
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Tropical Storm Imelda Insurance Lawsuit Against Polomar Specialty Insurance Company
Hurricane Harvey Damage Lawsuit Against AmRisc, LLC, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al.
Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Palomar Specialty Insurance Company
Property Damage Lawsuit Against a Construction Company
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Covington Insurance Company, et al.
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Lloyd’s Syndicates, et al.

Hail Damage Lawsuit on Behalf of a Caddo Parish, Louisiana Commercial Property Owner Against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

On or about April 29, 2020, a severe hailstorm hit the Plaintiff’s property, causing significant damage. Immediately following the storm, Plaintiff submitted a claim with Defendant, alerting them to the hailstorm damage and the loss covered under the policy. The defendant retained the adjusting firm Engle Martin & Associates, who processed the plaintiff’s claim for benefits. The defendant also assigned engineer Brian Sattler of EFI Global to inspect the property and report his findings.

During his inspection, Plaintiff’s professional consultants made sure to specifically identify the significant damage to the property’s roof systems, HVAC units, and lights. The Plaintiff’s consultants also told him of the various interior damages and leaks caused by the hail, but he did not request to see it. Defendant’s consultant recognized the damages to the subject property. However, the defendant ignored all evidence of covered damages provided by both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s own retained consultants and subsequently denied Plaintiff’s claim.

Wind and Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Twin City Fire Insurance Company

On June 6, 2018, a wind and hailstorm struck the plaintiff’s property, which caused significant damage to sizeable portions of the roof. As a result of the storm, there was also substantial interior damage to the buildings. Upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with the carrier alerting it to the extensive damages. The insurance carrier, Twin City, assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file who were inadequately and improperly trained. The defendant’s selected adjuster was unqualified, incapable of adequately assessing the damages to this type of commercial property, and was the source of many delays throughout the claim process.

Despite clear evidence of covered replacement cost and mitigation damages, the carrier failed to issue the full payment owed under the policy covering the plaintiff’s property and instead authorized continued delays and underpayments. This underpayment omitted a wealth of facts, including physical evidence, obvious hail damage, and meteorological data supporting the plaintiff’s claim.

Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company

Hurricane Harvey came ashore on August 25, 2017 as category 4 hurricane. Our client’s property suffered substantial wind damage from Hurricane Harvey. Immediately upon discovering the damage, our client filed an insurance claim with Acceptance. Because Acceptance does not have a single employee in Texas, they assigned The Artisan Works Group to handle the claim. Although Texas law provides that an insurer has a “non-delegable duty” to responsibly handle claims, delegate is precisely what foreign insurance entities like Acceptance do on a regular basis. Artisan Works commenced its investigation by assigning the claim to a local adjuster.

The local adjuster observed that hurricane force winds ripped up the roof seams, causing “severe” saturation to the roofing system and leaking into the interior of the building. The adjuster strongly recommended a full roof replacement due to the wind damage, replacement of ceiling tiles, and significant repair to the drywall and insulation. Subsequently, Acceptance asked the adjuster to revise his estimate on two separate occasions. Ignoring the obvious damages already conceded in writing, the adjuster and Artisan Works Group did what they were ordered to do by Acceptance and lowballed the claim.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Zurich American Insurance Company

On March 17, 2016, a hailstorm swept across Arlington, Texas, substantially damaging the plaintiff’s properties. The properties suffered damage to the roof, HVAC, exterior, and interior. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed a hailstorm insurance claim with Zurich. In response to the claim, Zurich assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequately trained to handle this type of claim.

Specifically, Zurich assigned the claim to an independent adjuster with decision-making authority over the claim and responsibility for assessing damages to the properties under the policy. The independent adjuster failed to perform a proper and thorough investigation of the claim. The independent adjuster failed to engage appropriate consultants and adjusters to objectively evaluate the damage and performed an outcome-oriented investigation aimed at denying the plaintiff’s claim. The adjuster utilized a vendor-preferred consultant to assess the damage but failed to provide a scope of estimates to the plaintiff.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against American National Property and Casualty Company

On April 12, 2016, a severe hail storm swept through Bexar County. As a result, the plaintiff’s business sustained significant damage to the roof, exteriors, and interiors of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with American National for damages caused by the storm. The plaintiff asked for the cost of the repairs to be covered pursuant to the policy. In response to the claim, American National assigned representatives, adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequately and improperly trained to handle this type of claim. Specifically, American National assigned the claim to an internal representative charged with assessing the damage.

The internal representative performed a substandard inspection of the property and did not prepare any estimates or scopes of damages. Instead, the internal representative retained a preferred vendor who was not qualified to evaluate this type of loss to inspect the damage. The internal representative refused to retain appropriate consultants to evaluate the claim. American National relied solely on the internal representative’s substandard investigation to determine what amounts, if any, to pay on the plaintiff’s claim. As a result of the haphazard investigation, American National wrongfully denied the plaintiff’s insurance claim.

Tornadic Wind Damage Lawsuit Against Underwriters at Lloyd’s London

On or about October 20, 2019, tornadic winds struck Plaintiff’s property resulting in substantial damage. Sizeable portions of the property’s roof and HVAC system were compromised by the wind. The following day, in an attempt to mitigate further damage to the property, Plaintiff purchased roofing supplies and hired a contractor to protect the damaged roof and begin repairs. However, on or around November 7, 2019, further severe weather in the form of an unexpected microburst struck the property causing additional damage. The winds blew off the roof covering that had been put in place after the October windstorm. This resulted in additional, significant water penetration into the second floor of the building causing substantial interior damage. Immediately after the storm, Plaintiff promptly filed a claim with Lloyd’s, alerting them to the extensive damage.

Lloyd’s claims-handling process, however, resulted in a wrongful refusal to pay and omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damages, and meteorological data supporting Plaintiff’s claim. Subsequently, Lloyd’s assigned an adjuster to handle the claim. He inspected the property on November 13, 2019, but was unqualified and incapable of adequately assessing damage to this type of commercial property and was the source of many delays throughout the claims process. Defendants would continue to delay claims resolution and did not provide Plaintiff with answers. To this day, due to Lloyd’s outcome-oriented, inadequate, and haphazard investigation, Lloyd’s has refused to pay for the covered damages under the policy.

Wind and Hailstorm damage Lawsuit Against American Economy Insurance Company and American States Insurance Company

On May 24, 2011, a severe wind and hailstorm swept through Dallas County and caused significant property damage to the plaintiff’s roof systems, HVAC, windows, exterior, interior, ceilings, furnishings, and more. Upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff immediately filed an insurance claim for the damages sustained from wind and hail.

American Economy and American States assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to assess the damage to the plaintiff’s property that were inadequately and improperly trained to handle this type of claim. The insurers assigned a local adjuster to the case that failed to engage consultants to objectively evaluate the damages to the property. The local adjuster refused to acknowledge obvious damages, and instead prepared two brief estimates of damages that grossly underestimated the extent and value of damages to the commercial property, and represented that there was no compensable hail damage to the properties. As a result, our client’s claim was denied and no payments were issued.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company

On April 19, 2015, a severe wind and hail storm swept through Harris County. As a result, our client’s properties sustained extensive damage to the roof, HVAC, exteriors, and interiors of the properties. Immediately upon discovering the damages, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim. In response to the claim, Mesa assigned representative, adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s files that were inadequately and improperly trained to investigate this type of damage. Specifically, Mesa assigned the claim to an internal adjuster who in turn assigned an additional adjuster to assess the damage.

Both adjusters failed to perform thorough investigations of the damages. Additionally, they failed to provide any estimate or scope of damages to the plaintiffs, and instead delayed the resolution of the claim. As a result of haphazard inspections, misrepresentations, and inadequate investigations, Mesa wrongfully denied payment of the claim and failed to provide notice of the denial despite repeated requests.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit on Behalf of a Harris County Commercial Property Owner Against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London

On June 29, 2019, a severe wind and hailstorm struck the plaintiff’s property causing substantial damage. Sizeable portions of the roof and the HVAC system were severely compromised. Upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Lloyd’s.

The insurance carrier, Lloyd’s, assigned third-party administrator, Mills Mehr & Associates (MMA), to the claim. MMA then assigned a field adjuster from The Littleton Group to adjust the claim. Before the damages were assessed, MMA concluded that coverage was not afforded for the subject claim. MMA then issued a denial letter on August 4, 2020. To this day, Lloyd’s has refused to pay for covered damages under its commercial property insurance policy.

Tropical Storm Imelda Insurance Lawsuit Against Polomar Specialty Insurance Company

On September 18, 2019, Tropical Storm Imelda hit Harris County and struck the subject commercial property, which caused significant damage to the commercial structure, including sizeable portions of the property’s roof. The roof, HVAC, and exterior were substantially damaged. Upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Polomar.

The insurance carrier—Polomar, assigned an internal adjuster and an engineer that were improperly trained to handle the claim. Polomar denied the claim after representatives stated the damage was anything but wind damage. Polomar has refused to pay for the damages covered under the policy .

Hurricane Harvey Damage Lawsuit Against AmRisc, LLC, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, General Indemnity Company of Arizona, United Specialty Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company, and International Insurance Company of Hannover SE

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey came ashore and became one of the most devastating storms in Texas history. Hurricane Harvey substantially damaged the subject property. The roof system, drywall, flooring, and other building components suffered damage. Upon discovering this damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim under its policy with the carriers for damages to the property. The plaintiff asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy.

The plaintiff’s consultant identified dramatic damage that ruined parts of the building’s interior and roof, while the carriers separated the events into a ‘primary’ and a ‘collapse’ claim. The carriers had the property inspected to determine the cause of loss and the ensuing collapse. The carriers, through AmRisc, assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file who were inadequate and improperly trained.

Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit on Behalf of Commercial Property Owners in Montgomery County, Texas and Caddo Parish, Louisiana Against Palomar Specialty Insurance Company

On or about April 25, 2020, a hailstorm struck the Montgomery County property causing substantial damage to the roof system, HVAC, interior, exterior, and more. As a result of the hail hitting the area, sizeable portions of the property’s roof were compromised. Similarly, on or about April 29, 2020, a hailstorm struck the Caddo Parish properties causing substantial damage to the roof systems, HVAC, windows, and exterior. Then On August 27, 2020, the properties were then hit by a second hailstorm. As a result of these hailstorms hitting the area, sizeable portions of the properties’ roofs were compromised.

The subject properties were substantially damaged by hail and wind. Immediately after the storms, plaintiffs promptly filed claims with Palomar, alerting the insurer to the extensive damages. Palomar’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful claim rejection that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind and hail damages, and meteorological data from the storm supporting plaintiffs’ claims. Palomar unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the hail and wind, an action designed to save the carrier millions of dollars in damages. To this day, due to Palomar’s outcome-oriented, inadequate, and haphazard investigation, the insurer has refused to fully pay for the covered damages under the plaintiffs’ policies.

Property Damage Lawsuit on Behalf of a Harris County Commercial Property Owner Against a Construction Company

In 2017 construction began on a neighboring property at or near the property line of the plaintiff’s commercial property. The construction company used equipment from the early morning hours until late in the afternoon over the course of many months to pound heavily on the ground. The force of this equipment was so strong it caused the plaintiff’s building to shake. This movement in turn resulted in partial collapse and structural deficiency.

As a result of the unsafe and encroaching construction work, portions of the lobby of the building crumbled from the top down and eventually fell apart completely, among other damage to the building. The building was functioning properly before the neighboring construction began, but ultimately suffered damage to the interior and exterior of the building, including the walls, ceilings, floors, windows, and the roof. The vibration damage has caused significant structural issues for the building.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Covington Insurance Company and Engle Martin & Associates

On April 26, 2016, a severe wind and hail storm struck Tarrant County, causing damage to the roof, exterior, and interior of the plaintiff’s property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Covington for the damages caused by the storm. In response to the claim, Covington assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequately and improperly trained to assess this type of damage. Specifically, Covington assigned the claim to Engle Martin, who in turn, assigned the claim to an employee.

Engle Martin and Covington performed an inadequate, incomplete, and unreasonable investigation of the claim, and Covington relied exclusively on this inadequate investigation to determine what amounts should be paid. As a result, our client’s claim was grossly underpaid.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Lloyd’s Syndicates, HDI Global Specialty SE fka International Insurance Company of Hannover SE, and Global Excess Partners, Inc.

On or about May 7, 2020, a wind and hailstorm struck the Plaintiffs’ property, causing substantial damage to the roof systems, HVACs, interiors, exteriors, and more. Despite how devastating the physical damage was, Plaintiffs felt protected by the several million dollars in insurance coverage they had for their property. Immediately following the storm, the Plaintiffs promptly filed claims with the Carriers, alerting them to the extensive damages.

The claims-handling process conducted by the Carriers resulted in a wrongful claim rejection, which omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind and hail damage, as well as meteorological data from the storm. The Carriers unreasonably pinned the losses on anything but the hail and wind, an action designed to save them money. To this day, due to the Carriers’ outcome-oriented, inadequate, and haphazard investigation, none of the Plaintiffs’ have been fully paid for the damages under their policy.

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

Office Building: Lawsuits Filed

Table of Contents: