There are court docket opinions that quietly reinforce fundamentals, after which there are opinions that virtually wave a pink flag and say, “Concentrate!” A current Texas federal resolution does the latter. 1 The case concerned a hail and wind declare, a previous Winter Storm Uri loss, competing estimates, and finally a whole protection win on abstract judgment as a result of the policyholder couldn’t show causation or segregate damages. The teachings are primary for Texas property insurance coverage legislation. Texas insurance coverage legislation will be unforgiving if these usually are not confirmed by the policyholder.
Texas legislation has by no means been shy about placing a excessive burden of proof upon the policyholder. An insured can not recuperate coverage advantages until the insured proves that the damages sought had been brought on by a coated peril and weren’t the results of excluded or prior occasions. When coated and excluded perils mix, the insured should current proof that provides a jury an inexpensive foundation to allocate damages.
Texas courts don’t guess. They don’t “join the dots” for you. They dismiss circumstances when proof of causation is lacking.
On this case, the policyholder had a previous paid appraisal award for Winter Storm Uri that included in depth inside injury. A later hail declare sought cost for lots of the similar rooms. The policyholder’s public adjuster produced a big estimate, however the estimate didn’t determine which damages had been brought on by the later storm, which had been brought on by the freeze, and which predated each. The estimate regarded spectacular. It simply didn’t do the job Texas legislation requires.
The court docket was blunt. An estimate that doesn’t opine on causation and doesn’t segregate damages is just not proof of protection. It doesn’t increase a truth situation. It doesn’t survive abstract judgment. That Texas property insurance coverage precept is just not new, however it’s enforced relentlessly. I’ve harassed this in my publish, The way to Lose a Causation Case: Particular Guidelines in Texas.
What made the end result much more damaging was how the causation hole was tried to be crammed. An affidavit appeared late within the case that contradicted prior sworn testimony. The decide struck it below the sham affidavit doctrine. With out that affidavit, there was nothing left to hold the policyholder’s burden. The case ended proper there. When onerous points come up, they need to be addressed early. Insurance coverage firm attorneys is not going to miss these points.
There’s a deeper lesson right here that goes past causation doctrine. Judges discover patterns. They learn footnotes. They keep in mind attorneys. On this opinion, the court docket included a footnote calling out prior conduct by the policyholder’s counsel in different circumstances and referenced earlier sanctions and credibility points. That footnote mattered. It didn’t assist the policyholder. It doubtless made each factual hole look wider and each misstep extra critical.
Policyholders shouldn’t rent attorneys based mostly on pithy promoting. Legal professionals with credibility shield the policyholder’s declare. As soon as credibility is broken, each shut name disappears. Causation disputes are shut calls by nature. They require belief within the specialists, belief in counsel, and transparency within the course of.
Thought For The Day
“It takes many good deeds to construct a popularity, and just one dangerous one to lose it.”
Benjamin Franklin
1 Reagins v. Meridian Safety Ins. Co., No. 4:24-cv-01404 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026). (See additionally, Meridian Safety Movement for Abstract Judgment).