I want I had a greenback for each one who has mentioned, “This can be a slam dunk dangerous religion case.” One lesson I repeatedly inform readers of this weblog is that there isn’t any such factor as a simple lawsuit. The second is that allegations in a criticism are one factor, and proof to fulfill a choose or jury is one other. A latest Texas case following a profitable appraisal final result is an instance of those classes.1
The case, determined final week, concerned a policyholder who obtained a considerably larger appraisal award than the insurer’s preliminary fee. Regardless of this substantial discrepancy, the court docket discovered no dangerous religion, reinforcing the long-standing authorized precedent that an insurer’s reliance on an appraisal course of doesn’t, by itself, set up misconduct. In different phrases, simply because the appraisal award was a lot larger than the preliminary funds, courts won’t undertaking that the distinction was attributable to a scarcity of fine religion remedy.
On the coronary heart of this case was a policyholder who suffered vital property harm and filed a declare with their insurer. After conducting its preliminary evaluation, the insurer issued a fee that the policyholder believed was inadequate to cowl the true extent of the loss. Pissed off by the perceived underpayment, the policyholder invoked the coverage’s appraisal provision, which allowed impartial appraisers to find out the suitable quantity owed. The appraisal course of in the end yielded an award far higher than the insurer’s authentic supply, main the policyholder to argue that the preliminary underpayment was proof of dangerous religion.
Regardless of the dramatic distinction between the preliminary fee and the ultimate appraisal award, the court docket remained steadfast in its software of Texas legislation, which holds that an insurer doesn’t act in dangerous religion just because it initially underpays a declare. The court docket emphasised that the insurer adopted the contractual appraisal course of and, upon receiving the ultimate award, promptly paid the total quantity. As a result of the insurer adhered to the coverage’s dispute decision mechanism and the policyholder didn’t supply extra proof of wrongful conduct, the court docket discovered no foundation for dangerous religion legal responsibility.
Texas legislation requires greater than an incorrect declare valuation to assist a discovering of dangerous religion. Texas courts require that the policyholder exhibit that the insurer knowingly engaged in unfair or misleading practices, acted with out a cheap foundation, or exhibited reckless disregard for the insured’s rights. On this case, there was no proof that the insurer intentionally undervalued the declare with malicious intent or tried to deceive the policyholder. As a substitute, the court docket decided that the unique low fee resulted from a dispute over valuation fairly than an intentional effort to disclaim advantages.
Below present Texas legislation, fee of an appraisal award usually precludes a nasty religion declare until the policyholder can show an impartial harm past the underpayment itself. This customary prevents routine disputes over declare quantities from escalating into dangerous religion litigation until there’s clear proof of wrongful conduct.
Policyholders dealing with vital variations between preliminary declare funds and appraisal awards could discover this authorized doctrine irritating. It raises questions concerning the effectiveness of legislation holding insurers accountable when their preliminary valuations fall far beneath what an goal appraisal determines to be truthful. I highlighted this challenge in final week’s publish, Dangerous Religion Insurance coverage Practices Shielded By “Get Out of Jail Free” Late Funds:
This ruling highlights a significant flaw in the best way Texas courts deal with dangerous religion insurance coverage claims. It sends a transparent message to insurers: when you ultimately pay what you owe—irrespective of how lengthy you drag it out—you possibly can keep away from any actual penalties for wrongful declare practices. The result’s an uneven taking part in area the place policyholders undergo via monetary uncertainty, property deterioration, and authorized battles whereas insurance coverage corporations use delay ways as a calculated enterprise technique.
The logic behind shielding insurers from dangerous religion legal responsibility after a late fee is deeply flawed. When a policyholder recordsdata a authentic declare, they accomplish that as a result of they want the cash to restore their residence, change their belongings, or get better from a loss immediately. A wrongful denial or extended delay doesn’t simply create inconvenience—it may drive enterprise house owners and households into monetary misery, depart buildings in disrepair, and disrupt lives. It undermines the rationale why Individuals buy insurance coverage within the first place. The truth that an insurer can later “repair” the state of affairs with a fee—together with curiosity—doesn’t erase the hurt attributable to the preliminary refusal to pay or roadblocks inflicting delay.
If a financial institution wrongly foreclosed on somebody’s residence and later reversed course by providing the house owner compensation plus curiosity, that wouldn’t undo the harm of being wrongfully evicted. But, within the insurance coverage world, this type of hurt is routinely excused underneath the guise of authorized precedent. Texas courts, citing circumstances like Ortiz and Navarra v. State Farm Lloyds, now constantly rule that when a fee is made via appraisal, policyholders don’t have any additional recourse—until they’ll show an impartial harm….
For policyholders and public adjusters navigating Texas insurance coverage legislation, this case serves as a reminder that the mere truth of an insurer underpaying a declare—even by a major margin—shouldn’t be sufficient to determine dangerous religion. Texas courts require concrete proof that the insurer acted unfairly, dishonestly, or recklessly in dealing with the declare. With out such proof, even substantial variations between an insurer’s preliminary valuation and an appraisal award won’t essentially assist a profitable dangerous religion lawsuit.
As I learn the opposing transient filed by the policyholder, I didn’t see any reference to any dangerous religion professional opinions with supporting proof of dangerous religion conduct. Many dangerous religion circumstances involving insurance coverage misconduct require displaying what requirements of fine religion conduct are and that the insurer did not act in that method. This case may be as a lot a few lack of proof as another lesson.
Whereas this ruling reinforces current authorized precedent, it additionally raises vital concerns for policyholders who imagine they’ve been mistreated. Though an appraisal award itself doesn’t show dangerous religion, different elements—equivalent to intentional delay ways, knowingly lowballing claims, or disregarding clear proof of harm—should give rise to legitimate authorized claims.
Policyholders who suspect wrongful conduct ought to doc their interactions with insurers fastidiously, instantly search authorized steering even earlier than demanding appraisal, and discover all out there choices for guaranteeing all rights are protected.
Thought For The Day
“Clever males communicate as a result of they’ve one thing to say; fools as a result of they need to say one thing.”
— Plato
1 Dillen v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 4:23-cv-2043 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2025).