[ad_1]
The First Court docket of Appeals in Houston affirmed an evaluation that concerned math and utility of the Texas Insurance coverage Code. In Jones v. Allstate Car & Property Insurance coverage Firm, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8896 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2022, no pet.), the policyholder appealed a take-nothing judgment in favor of the insurer in a dispute over a partial denial of a owners declare. The policyholder sued her insurer for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Insurance coverage Code, and breach of the obligation of fine religion and honest dealing. At trial, the jury discovered that the insurer did not adjust to the coverage, engaged in unfair and misleading commerce practices, and did not adjust to the obligation of fine religion and honest dealing. The jury discovered that $6,935 would pretty and fairly compensate the policyholder for the insurer’s conduct. The jury additionally discovered that the policyholder incurred $27,000 in cheap and obligatory legal professional’s charges.
The trial courtroom accepted the jury’s findings, however rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the insurer and awarded the insurer its prices. The trial courtroom reasoned that the insurer had already paid $4,670.67 on the policyholder’s declare. The trial courtroom additionally famous {that a} deductible of $3,040 utilized to the policyholder’s declare. As a result of these quantities, when mixed, exceeded the damages discovered by the jury, the trial courtroom ordered that the policyholder was not entitled to any damages or different aid.
On attraction, the policyholder asserted that Texas Insurance coverage Code §541.152(a)(1) entitled her to an award of legal professional’s charges. The statute offers {that a} prevailing plaintiff might acquire “the quantity of precise damages, plus prices and cheap and obligatory legal professional’s charges.” The courtroom of appeals assumed with out deciding that such language mandated an award of legal professional’s charges. The courtroom of appeals surveyed authorities and held {that a} plaintiff should acquire a judgment in her favor and be awarded one thing, both financial or equitable, to qualify as a prevailing celebration. Conversely, the courtroom of appeals famous {that a} defendant that secured a take-nothing judgment is a prevailing celebration.
The courtroom of appeals additionally mentioned disputes over the usual of evaluate and the reporter’s file which can be past the scope of this weblog put up.
The policyholder conceded within the courtroom of appeals that the trial courtroom was right in not awarding damages because of offsets. However, she argued that she had prevailed as a result of she obtained favorable jury findings. She emphasised a public coverage argument, that an award of legal professional’s charges was obligatory below the Texas Insurance coverage Code to punish insurers for wrongdoing and defend customers.
The courtroom of appeals rejected the policyholder’s argument. The courtroom of appeals famous pressure between Texas authorities concerning whether or not full offsets of jury awards precluded legal professional’s charges awards. The courtroom of appeals distinguished these authorities that might have allowed an award of legal professional’s charges by noting that they concerned claims and counter-claims, in contrast to the moment case. Surveying authorities, the courtroom of appeals handled the pretrial insurance coverage funds like pretrial settlement funds. The courtroom of appeals opined that the insurer thus paid the complete quantity it owed to the policyholder on her claims earlier than the trial even started. This meant that the policyholder didn’t prevail and can’t recuperate her legal professional’s charges.
The courtroom of appeals hinted that the result might need been totally different if the insurer had asserted the affirmative protection of offset and if the jury cost had been offered and determined in another way. In any occasion, Jones underscores how essential it’s for each side to precisely and realistically consider their circumstances earlier than continuing to trial. Additional, even when the courtroom of appeals had allowed an award of legal professional’s charges, it might not have allowed an award of $27,000 on a restoration of $6,935.
About The Writer
[ad_2]
