Retained by insurance company defense counsel to examine Homeowners Insurance underwriting and address Insurance Bad Faith allegations against the carrier. Policyholder significantly understated and misrepresented his dwelling square footage on the application resulting in policy limits well below replacement cost. Regardless that the carrier relied on misrepresentations he made on the application to issue the policy, plaintiff now alleges carrier was responsible for calculating replacement cost after a 2017 fire destroyed the structure. Attorney Bill Manning, Van De Poel, Levy, Thomas, Arneal, LLP (925) 034-6102. St. Martin v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.: SCV-263296, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze Insurance Bad Faith issues relative to Homeowners Insurance claims handling custom and practice for a theft loss. Central to the dispute were the excessive depreciation factors used to calculate Actual Cash Value versus Fair Market Value, the carrier questioning ownership of the stolen contents, and long delays in processing the claim. Attorney Tom Friedman, Brown, Bonn & Friedman, LLP (702) 942-3900. Maxwell v. Travelers, Case No. 2:20-cv-01669-JAD-BNW In United States District Court District of Nevada.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review claims handling custom and practice for Homeowners Insurance. Litigation resulted following a claim denial after a fire destroyed high value personal property stored off-premises during a home renovation. Case required in depth analysis of policy language relative to limits and coverage for personal property off-premises under specific circumstances and whether the carrier committed Insurance Bad Faith in denying the claim. Attorney David Heller (281) 599-8775. Tavakoli v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, Cause No. 2021-14612 In The 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review Insurance Agent Errors and Omissions relative to standards of care for placing Homeowners Insurance policies. Agent placed coverage with a ‘Cosmetic Roof Exclusion’ whereas prior carrier’s policy had no such exclusion for metal roofs. Policyholder suffered significant financial damage after denial of a hailstorm claim. Attorney Matt Montgomery, Hossley Embry, LLP. Permenter v. Assured Partners, Civil Action No. 3:31-cv-1325 In United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to review issues of Homeowners Insurance Bad Faith claims handling for extensive mold damage to insured’s residence. Attorneys David Schack and Matt Segal, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (310) 284-3873. Buccholz v. Crestbrook Insurance Company d/b/a Nationwide, Cause No. 1:20-CV-00449-AP In United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Engaged by defense counsel to respond to policyholder allegations of Bad Faith Claims Handling of a purported Homeowners hail claim. Dispute resulted after carrier’s adjusters could find no visible evidence of hail damage, including after reinspection. Case required analysis of public adjuster’s inflated Xactimate estimates and questionable findings of roof damage. Attorney Carin Marcussen, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard (713) 766-7969. Hughes v. USAA, Cause No. 20-07-08642 In The 284th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.
Engaged by policyholder counsel to opine on Insurance Bad Faith Claims Handling of a Dwelling Policy water loss. Case required analysis of Xactimate estimates and reasonable standards for claims handling custom and practice. Dispute resulted from carrier’s refusal to pay total cleanup and dry out costs, which lead to restoration contractor obtaining a judgment against owner. Attorney Jeremy Hugus, Platte River Injury Law, (307) 840-1064. Zamir v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 2018CV130, In District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado.
February 21, 2019Don Hirsch
Engaged by policyholder counsel to analyze issues of Insurance Bad Faith Claims Handling. Case required analysis of damage patterns from straight-line winds and whether construction defect caused the loss. Dispute followed carrier denying most of the damage from a windstorm claim asserting construction defect as the proximate cause of loss. Attorneys. Scott Blass and Erica Cross, Bordas and Bordas Attorneys, PLLC, (304) 242-8410. Thompson v. Allstate, Civil Action No. 5:18-CV-118, In The United States District Court For The Northern District of West Virginia, Wheeling.
October 27, 2018Don Hirsch
Engaged by policyholder counsel to calculate Superstorm Sandy damage to several buildings that would have been recoverable had agent properly placed NFIP policies. The case required preparation of proforma NFIP ACV and ICC claim values plus potential recovery under an excess flood policy. Attorney Jeff Schulman, Pasich, LLP (212) 686-5000. Ferguson v. Whitmore Group, Index No. 15-610192 / CAL No. 17-014260T, Supreme Court State of New York, IAS Part 38 – Suffolk County.
July 30, 2018Don Hirsch
Engaged by lender’s defense counsel to analyze Flood Insurance issues relative to the lapse of a NFIP renewal policy resulting in the dwelling’s Flood Zone being rated in a Special Flood Hazard Area. Engagement required analysis of lender forced place insurance, applicable NFIP rating rules and preparation of proforma NFIP worksheets to compare premium based on the old versus new Flood Zones. Attorneys Leo Ward and Christy McCann, Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven, P.C. (406) 443-6820. Schneidt v. First Interstate Bank
April 12, 2018Don Hirsch