Quantcast

Federal appeals court certifies question to Texas Supreme Court in insurance case

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Federal appeals court certifies question to Texas Supreme Court in insurance case

Federal Court
Nikolas noonan fqm8cbgy6iq unsplash

A lawsuit over tornado damage has raised legal questions about a Texas state law. | Nikolas Noonan/Unsplash

A federal appeals has certified a request to the Texas Supreme Court  to clarify a state law at question in an insurance claim for tornado damage.

 Mario Rodriquez sued Safeco Insurance Co. in state court  federal district court after an adjuster estimated the damage to his home to be $1,295. Rodriguez claimed he was owed an additional $29,500. The case was transferred to federal district court.

After the suit was filed, Safeco paid Rodriguez more than $40,000, which was the appraised cost for fully replacing the house plus interest, but refused to cover his attorney fees, citing a 2017 amendment to the state of Texas insurance code.

The district court granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment and Rodriguez appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The appelate court wants the Texas Supreme Court to answer a question about the 2017 amendment.

"In 2017, the Texas legislature amended § 542, raising an important issue of Texas insurance law as to which there is no controlling Texas Supreme Court

authority, and the authority from the intermediate state appellate courts provides insufficient guidance," the Fifth Circuit said. "Thus, we certify the relevant question to the Supreme Court of Texas."

In a friend-of-the court brief, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, a trade group, said Safeway has no legal requirement to pay attorney fees since the insurance company paid the full replacement value of the home plus interest. 

"Safeco paid Rodriguez the appraisal award’s final cash value and any interest that conceivably could be owed on that amount," the trade group wrote. "That fact disallows a recovery of attorney’s fees."

Attorneys for Rodriquez, however, argued their friend of the court brief that the insurance adjuster originally maintained that the house was not damaged by a tornado.but by "inadvertent man-made happenings."

 Safeco’s hired engineers knew that was untrue but "they blatantly and deceitfully misrepresented the intensity of the storm," wrote Rodriquez' attorneys.

"Safeco vigorously litigated the case for a full year and only after that did they invoke appraisal," the attorneys wrote."Eight months later,

the award came back at about twenty-eight times Safeco’s [original[ estimate."

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News