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

Owning a retail property goes far beyond managing a brick-and-mortar storefront. The owners of these commercial properties can include developers, investors, real estate investment trusts, grantor trusts, and business owners both small and large, among others. Regardless of who the owner is, these properties typically deal with valuable inventory that can easily be compromised by property damage from an unforeseen event or natural disaster. While the cost of repairs for such damage can be daunting, owners can also be faced with lost income due to having to be closed for business for those repairs to be undertaken and completed.

While filing an insurance claim is one of the first things retail property owners should do in these situations, an insurer may choose to deny a valid claim to turn a profit. In these unfortunate scenarios, it is in the best interest of the commercial property owner to consult with a an insurance claim attorney and potentially file a lawsuit.

Commercial property damage coverage is essential for business owners to have well before they open their doors. No matter if the owner owns the entire building or leases space as a tenant, having a certain degree of coverage is imperative. This coverage in particular works to protect the business against losses sustained by company property, buildings, and other assets when a fire, natural disaster, vandalism, or severe weather leaves the space inoperable and/or in need of repair. Despite this, insurers frequently choose to delay, deny, or attempt to make an underpayment on valid claims.

At Raizner Slania, our commercial damage claims attorneys know this can be incredibly upsetting and damaging to the hard-working owners of these retail establishments. While some policyholders may be on the fence about pursuing legal action in the form of a lawsuit against their insurer for a wrongfully denied claim, our aggressive and efficient approach to handling these lawsuits has proven effective in achieving the results our clients need. Our law firm has successfully handled lawsuits against insurance companies on behalf of retail businesses including strip centers, shopping malls, stand-alone retail buildings, box buildings, and other centers ranging in size from small shops to large urban malls.

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

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Great Lakes Reinsurance SE, et al.
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against EMC Property & Casualty Company
Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit Against Lexington Insurance Company, et al.
Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company
Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against State Farm Lloyds
Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Columbia Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Axis Surplus Insurance Company
Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuit Against American Zurich Insurance Company and Vericlaim, Inc.
Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company
Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Great American Insurance Company of New York
Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against United Fire & Casualty Company
Hurricane Harvey Damage Lawsuit Against Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Insurance Lawsuit Against Zurich American Insurance Company

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Alterra America Insurance Company, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Commercial Industrial Building Owners Alliance, Inc., Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Homeland Insurance Company of New York, Claims Adjusting Group, Inc., and Atain Specialty Insurance Company

On April 13, 2016, a severe hail and wind storm swept through Bexar County, Texas. The storm caused significant property damage, including extensive damage to the roof, interior, HVAC systems, and siding. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with its carriers and requested the cost of repairs be covered, including replacement of the roof, interior, HVAC systems, siding, and loss of income. The damage to the plaintiff’s roof was so severe that one of the tenants who had signed a five-year lease just two weeks prior to the storm terminated its lease.

In response to the claim, the carriers assigned adjusters that were inadequately and improperly trained to assess this type of claim. These adjusters failed to perform a thorough claim investigation, spending an inadequate amount of time inspecting the property. The adjusters’ report failed to include all of the storm damage noted upon inspection. The damages the adjusters included in the report were grossly undervalued and did not allow for adequate funds to cover the cost of repairing all sustained damages. The carriers failed to thoroughly review and properly supervise the work of their assigned adjusters, which ultimately led to an improper adjustment and an inadequate, unfair settlement of the plaintiff’s claim.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against EMC Property & Casualty Company

On or about May 8, 2019, there was severe wind and hailstorm at the plaintiff’s shopping center, causing significant damage to the property, including the roof systems. After several leaks were found in February 2020, the property manager, on plaintiff’s behalf, submitted a claim to EMC for payment for the covered damages under the policy. On February 7, 2020, the defendant sent a reservation of rights letter indicating it would not be making a coverage determination at that time. After several months with no contact from the defendant, Plaintiff was forced to hire a licensed public adjuster to represent its interests.

On or around April 24, 2020, another significant wind and hailstorm struck the Shreveport area, exacerbating the property damage. On September 18, 2020, the defendant sent a consultant to inspect the property. During the inspection, plaintiff’s personal consultants were also present and specifically identified significant physical damage to the roof systems, HVAC units, and exterior. plaintiff’s consultants also pointed out the interior damage and leaks caused by the hail damage in support of the claim. On November 20, 2020 – over 10 months after plaintiff filed its insurance claim – defendant sent a denial letter. This letter included the report defendant’s consultant had prepared, which recognized significant hail dents and impacts, but was carefully drafted to diminish the impact of this obvious damage. The defendant conveniently and selectively ignored significant evidence of covered hail damage.

Hail Damage Insurance Lawsuit Against Lexington Insurance Company, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, James River Insurance Company, Landmark American Insurance Company, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, Sompo American Insurance Company, and McLarens, Inc.

On June 5, 2013, the plaintiff’s property was substantially damaged by a wind and hailstorm that swept through Harris County. The storm caused damage to the roof, HVAC, exterior, and interior of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with the carriers for damages caused by the storm.

In response to the claim, the carriers assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were inadequate and improperly trained. Specifically, the carriers assigned the claim to McLarens, Inc. who in turn assigned the claim to an employee. Based on the employee’s haphazard investigation, the carriers grossly underpaid and wrongly denied the plaintiff’s insurance claim. The carriers represented to the plaintiff that some damages were not covered under the policy, when in fact they were. The plaintiff was forced to hire its own consultant to independently evaluate the damages to the property because the carriers refused to do so.

Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey swept through Pasadena and hit the plaintiff’s property on August 26. The high winds from the storm compromised large potions of the property’s roof, allowing rain to be driven in, causing significant interior damage. There was also significant damage to the insulation, exterior lighting, drywall, paint, flooring, bathroom, lighting, ceilings, and other parts of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damages, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Westchester alerting them of the damage.

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 Hurricane Harvey supporting the plaintiff’s claim. Westchester unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save Westchester hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the property and the business. Although Westchester has, to date, provided no clear documentation of its inspection or findings, it denied the claim in full.

Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against State Farm Lloyds

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey came ashore in Aransas County and San Patricio County as a Category 4 Hurricane. As a result of Harvey’s extreme winds and rain when it hit the Texas coast, the property was substantially damaged. The catastrophic wind and rain caused substantial damage, including damage to the signage, furniture, fixtures, cameras, movie theatres, screens, and more. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with State Farm and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy.

State Farm’s claim-handling process omitted important facts, physical evidence, and meteorological data supporting the plaintiffs’ claim and extensive losses and resulted in a wrongful underpayment. State Farm underpaid the plaintiff’s claim for the covered damage to the property and the plaintiff’s loss of business/business interruption claim.

Hail Damage Lawsuit Against Columbia Mutual Insurance Company and Texas Insurance Claims Service, Inc.

In April 2015, a severe hailstorm swept through Ellis County and substantially damaged the plaintiff’s property. The hailstorm caused damage to the roof, exterior, and interior of the property. Immediately upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Columbia for the cost of repairs to be covered under its policy. In response to the claim, Columbia assigned representatives, adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s claim that were inadequately and improperly trained to handle this type of claim. Specifically, Columbia assigned the claim to Texas Insurance Claims Services who in turn assigned it to an employee.

Both Texas Insurance and the employee failed to perform a thorough investigation of the property. The employee refused to hire any qualified experts to appropriately assess the damage. In addition, the employee delayed the claims process and failed to communicate with the plaintiff. Columbia relied solely on Texas Insurance Claims Service and the employee’s haphazard investigation of the property to determine what amounts, if any, to pay on the plaintiff’s claim. As a result, Columbia wrongfully denied and grossly underpaid the plaintiff’s claim for property repairs.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against Axis Surplus Insurance Company

On March 27, 2018, a wind and hailstorm struck the plaintiff’s property, which caused significant damage to the commercial structure, including damage to sizeable portions of the property’s roofs. The roof damages caused interior damage. Upon discovering the damage, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Axis.

Axis assigned adjusters, consultants, and agents to the plaintiff’s file that were improperly trained. After cursory and substandard inspections, Axis denied the claim after the report stated previous hail damage and wear and tear caused the damages at issue. No payments have been made to LFD Home Furnishings for the damages from the wind and hailstorm.

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

On May 13, 2016, a fire broke out at the plaintiff’s property, which consisted of structures under construction at the time of the fire. The fire damaged the structure, plumbing, windows, walls, floors, frame, roof, exterior, and interior of the property. The plaintiff filed an insurance claim under its policy with Zurich for damages to the property caused by the fire.

Zurich improperly applied a co-insurance penalty to the loss and falsely represented that the plaintiff was underinsured on its builder’s risk insurance policy. Zurich and Vericlaim also misinterpreted policy provisions concerning the reporting of construction status and property values. In response to the claim, Zurich assigned the claim to Vericlaim, which in turn assigned the claim to an employee. Vericlaim and the employee failed to perform a thorough investigation of the property and improperly ignored clear damages covered by the policy. Vericlaim and its employee sought to deny the plaintiff’s claim and conducted an outcome-oriented investigation geared toward concluding the plaintiff was underinsured for the loss, which would result in a large financial benefit to Zurich. As a result of the haphazard investigation, the plaintiff has been grossly underpaid for property damages. Zurich and Vericlaim engaged in illegal insurance claim settlement practices by refusing to accept responsibility for the loss.

Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company

The plaintiff owns ten different commercial properties across Harris County and Fort Bend County. When Hurricane Harvey devastated Texas beginning on August 25, 2017, the plaintiff’s properties suffered significant wind damage from the storm. Immediately upon discovering the damage across its properties, the plaintiff filed wind insurance claims with State Auto and asked the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the insurance policy. State Auto’s claims-handling process resulted in wrongful denials that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious wind damage, and meteorological data from Hurricane Harvey supporting the plaintiff’s claims. State Auto unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the wind, an action designed to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims payouts for damages to the properties and the businesses.

According to the adjuster, the plaintiff’s claims were denied on the basis of finding “no wind/storm related damages to the building” on nine out of the ten properties. This conclusion was based on an outcome-oriented investigation aimed at denying the plaintiff’s claims from the outset. State Auto, its adjusters, and consultants ignored obvious catastrophic wind damage to the properties, and refused to consider Harvey’s considerable winds were the source of the damage. The claims adjustment process was unnecessarily complicated, disorganized, and conducted behind closed doors until State Auto ultimately wrongfully refused to compensate the plaintiff for any of the obvious covered damages under its policy.

Hurricane Harvey Lawsuit Against Twin City Fire Insurance Company

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. Twin City ultimately denied the plaintiff’s claim.

Wind and Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit on Behalf of Caddo Parish Property Owners Against Great American Insurance Company of New York

On or about March 25, 2019, a severe wind and hailstorm caused significant damage to the subject properties, including the roof systems. Significant leaks resulted after another severe wind and hailstorm on May 8, 2019. The property manager hired a licensed public insurance adjuster, on behalf of the property owners, to assess the damage from the storms. The public adjuster submitted a claim to defendant for payment to cover the damages under the policy. The defendant retained an independent adjuster, Engle Martin & Associates, to investigate the claim. However, Engle Martin only investigated some of the properties on May 13, 2020. During the investigation, the plaintiffs’ professional consultants were present and specifically identified significant physical damage to the roof systems and exterior of the properties. Further, plaintiffs’ consultants pointed out interior damage and leaks caused by the hail damage in support of the claim.

On September 9, 2020, defendant sent a reservation of rights letter indicating it maintained its right to disclaim coverage for loss or a portion of each loss at a later date while the investigation was ongoing. The reservation of rights letter included a summary of the report by its consultant, Roof Technical Services, which recognized wind and hail damage as well as hail dents and impacts. However, defendant’s consultant was careful in drafting the report to diminish the impact of the obvious damage. Despite defendant’s own consultants recognizing the presence of wind and hail damage at the properties, the defendant ignored all evidence of covered damage presented by both the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s retained consultants.

Hailstorm Damage Lawsuit Against United Fire & Casualty Company

On May 21, 2017, a wind and hail storm ripped through Laredo and Webb County, causing significant damage to the plaintiff’s buildings. As a result of the hail and windstorm, the properties were substantially damaged. Sizeable portions of the properties’ roofs were compromised by hail and wind. As a result of the roof damages, the properties also sustained interior damages. Immediately upon discovering the damages, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with United Fire and asked that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to its policies.

United Fire’s claims-handling process resulted in a wrongful denial that omitted a wealth of facts, physical evidence, obvious hail and wind damages, and meteorological data supporting the plaintiff’s claims. United Fire unreasonably pinned the loss on anything but the hail and wind, an action designed to save the company hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the properties and the businesses. United Fire, its adjusters, and consultants ignored obvious catastrophic hail and wind damage to the properties and refused to consider that hail and wind were actually the source of obvious damages. The claims adjustment process was unnecessarily complicated, disorganized, and conducted behind closed doors until United Fire ultimately wrongfully refused to compensate its insured for any of the obvious covered damages under the policy.

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

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey came ashore along the Texas coastline as a Category 4 hurricane. As a result of Hurricane Harvey’s extreme winds and rain, large portions of the property’s roof were damaged. Because the roof was compromised, there was also damage to the interiors, ceilings, walls, and flooring of the property. Immediately after the storm, the plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Lloyd’s, asking that the cost of repairs be covered pursuant to the policy. Although Texas law provides an insurer has a “non-delegable duty” to responsibly handle claims, Lloyd’s does not have a single employee in Texas so they delegated the claim to a third party administrator.

The third party administrator’s adjustment 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 adjusters continuously ignored the plaintiff’s representative in an effort to intentionally mislead the insured about the claims process and ultimately deny the claim. While they did acknowledge “extensive water damage” at the property, the companies stated the water damage was a result of “improper roof drainage, age-related deterioration to the roof covering and metal decking and deferred maintenance,” which while boilerplate exclusions under the policy, were not supported by any relevant facts or data.

Insurance Lawsuit Against Zurich American Insurance Company

Between March 2016 and August 2017, all of the plaintiffs’ 14 properties were damaged, and insurance claims were filed with Zurich between June 2016 and January 2018. Under the applicable policy, a provision permits either party – if they disagree on the value of the property or the amount of loss – to make a written demand for appraisal. Both parties then select a “competent, disinterested, and impartial appraiser” under this provision.

The parties engaged in appraisal pursuant to the terms of the applicable policy for all of the properties except one, and Zurich made payments owed under the insurance policy for all of the properties. Despite the plaintiffs’ timely filing of claims, Zurich’s payment of the appraisal awards did not occur until several months or, in some cases, even years later. The appraisal awards were entered (and paid) between May 2018 and August 2019. In compliance with Texas Insurance Code Section 542A.003, plaintiffs gave pre-suit notice to Zurich on March 13, 2020. The pre-suit notice outlined plaintiffs’ claims and damages, quantified losses, and offered to waive a formal claim for attorneys’ fees in the event contractual amounts were paid promptly. Zurich responded to this demand on April 17, 2020, but refused to acknowledge its statutory violations.

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

Retail Property: Lawsuits Filed

Table of Contents: