HOUSTON – Two attempts to seek a new trial from a couple who alleged their insurer had failed to provide adequate payments for their home after it was damaged by Hurricane Ike has been turned back by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.
The plaintiffs Mark and Stacey Bent sought a new trial to reconsider an alleged breach of contract by USAA (United Services Automobile Association), diminished value damages and lack of awarded attorney fees.
The case stems from the purchase of a home in Piney Point (Harris County, Texas) in 2005 for $1 million by the Bents. The Bents improved the property and in 2008 an appraiser valued the home at $1.8 million. The Bents also purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from USAA.
Hurricane Ike damaged the home in September of 2008. An adjuster eventually estimated the damages to the home from Hurricane Ike at $98,000 and USAA sent a corresponding payment.
In April of 2009 the home was damaged by a flood. Mold damage to the home was discovered after the flood. USAA informed the Bents the mold damage was not covered in their policy. However, the Bents alleged that some of the mold damage was caused by the hurricane rather than the flood.
In July of 2009 the total damage was estimated at $162,000, attributable to Ike or the flood or both.
In October of 2009 the Bents submitted another estimate of damages not previously identified in USAA’s inspections of the home. The insurance company said it could not make another payment until further information was supplied by the Bents.
After further delays in settlement an attorney for the Bents claimed the USAA had breached its contract. The Bents sued USAA for alleged breach of the homeowner’s policy, non-prompt-payment of claims and “deceptive” practices.
In 2010 the Bents stopped making mortgage payments on the home and after foreclosure it was sold at auction in 2012 for $655,000.
A jury decided the USAA had not breached its contract but did make a statement that would lead a reasonable person to misunderstand the agreement. The couple was awarded $150,000 for the diminished value of their home and $250,000 for “mental anguish” suffered, but no attorney fees for an appeal.
A new trial was requested by the couple in 2013.
USAA petitioned and the First District Appeals Court refused the request, stating that a new trial was unwarranted. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court which also denied a new trial.
The Bents filed a second motion for a new trial to be held in 2016, which was granted by a trial court. The First District Appeals Court subsequently found that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the Bents’ motion for a new trial in 2016.
The First District Appeals Court granted the USAA a “writ of mandamus,” an order to correct an abuse of discretion (the granting of a new trial in 2016 by the trial court).