There are courtroom opinions that quietly reinforce fundamentals, after which there are opinions that virtually wave a purple flag and say, “Concentrate!” A current Texas federal choice 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 regulation. Texas insurance coverage regulation might be unforgiving if these aren’t confirmed by the policyholder.
Texas regulation 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 lined peril and weren’t the results of excluded or prior occasions. When lined and excluded perils mix, the insured should current proof that offers 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 intensive inside injury. A later hail declare sought cost for lots of the identical rooms. The policyholder’s public adjuster produced a big estimate, however the estimate didn’t establish which damages had been brought on by the later storm, which had been brought on by the freeze, and which predated each. The estimate appeared spectacular. It simply didn’t do the job Texas regulation requires.
The courtroom was blunt. An estimate that doesn’t opine on causation and doesn’t segregate damages isn’t proof of protection. It doesn’t increase a reality difficulty. It doesn’t survive abstract judgment. That Texas property insurance coverage precept isn’t new, however it’s enforced relentlessly. I’ve careworn this in my submit, Methods 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 choose 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 exhausting points come up, they need to be addressed early. Insurance coverage firm legal professionals won’t miss these points.
There’s a deeper lesson right here that goes past causation doctrine. Judges discover patterns. They learn footnotes. They bear in mind legal professionals. On this opinion, the courtroom 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 probably made each factual hole look wider and each misstep extra critical.
Policyholders shouldn’t rent legal professionals primarily based on pithy promoting. Legal professionals with credibility defend 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 status, 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).
