Payment of Appraisal Award Defeats Claim of Bad Faith
Post 5163
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dNpKKcYx, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dNgwRP8q and at https://lnkd.in/dA9dvd-D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Hurricane Damage to Dwelling Established by Appraisal Award
In Homeowners Of America Insurance Company v. Emilio Menchaca, No. 01-23-00633-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (July 31, 2025) after a hurricane Homeowners of America Insurance Company (“HAIC”) estimated that the cost of covered repair to Menchaca’s house was $3,688.54, which was less than his deductible, and therefore no payment would be made.
FACTS
After Menchaca retained counsel HAIC advised that, under the terms of the policy, Menchaca was required to first invoke the appraisal process prior to filing suit, and that HAIC reserved the right to request that Menchaca and any adjuster hired on his behalf submit to an Examination Under Oath (“EUO”).
On August 23, 2018, Menchaca’s counsel sent a demand notice letter to HAIC stating that Menchaca had sustained $48,757.98 in economic damages based on an estimate prepared by Henry Sienema, Vice President of Case Strategies Group. The letter demanded that HAIC pay $48,757.98 in actual damages, $2,400 in attorney’s fees, and $2,000 in expenses, totaling $53,157.98, to resolve the matter without litigation.
HAIC Invoked the Appraisal Process
HAIC’s appraiser and the agreed umpire signed an appraisal award setting the amount of loss for Menchaca’s claim. On June 4, 2021, without admitting liability, HAIC issued a check to Menchaca in the amount of $7,085.86- the actual cash value of $13,145.86 assigned by the appraisers minus the $6,060 deductible under Menchaca’s policy.
Trial began and the jury returned a verdict for Menchaca. The trial court rendered final judgment on the jury’s verdict on May 31, 2023, ordering that Menchaca recover from HAIC $300,000 in mental anguish damages, $250,000 for his reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and $93,000 in pre- judgment interest. This appeal followed.
KEY POINTS OF CASE
- Initial Claim and Appraisal:
Menchaca’s initial claim was denied as the estimated repair cost was less than his deductible . Menchaca then demanded $48,757.98 in damages, leading HAIC to invoke the appraisal process .
- Legal Proceedings:
HAIC filed for declaratory judgment, questioning the qualifications of Menchaca’s appraiser and requesting an Examination Under Oath (EUO) from Menchaca . Menchaca counterclaimed, alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, breach of contract, and bad faith .
- Jury Verdict:
The jury found in favor of Menchaca, awarding him $300,000 in mental anguish damages, $250,000 in attorney’s fees, and $93,000 in pre-judgment interest .
- Appeal:
HAIC appealed, arguing that it had complied with its obligations under the policy by paying the appraisal award and that Menchaca’s mental anguish damages were not recoverable as an “independent injury”. The Court of Appeals agreed with HAIC, reversing the trial court’s judgment and ruling that Menchaca take nothing on his counterclaims.
DISCUSSION
The only actual damages Menchaca sought were lost policy benefits which HAIC paid when it paid the appraisal award. The only “actual damages” Menchach sought are the policy benefits wrongfully withheld, and those benefits have already been paid pursuant to the policy. The trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of Menchaca on his contractual and extracontractual claims and awarding him $300,000 in mental anguish damages.
HAIC discharged its liability under the policy by paying the appraisal amount in full, along with statutory interest, and complied with its obligations under the policy. Because HAIC has paid the full appraisal award and any possible statutory interest, Menchaca cannot recover attorney’s fees and the trial court erred in awarding him such. The Court of Appeals also sustained HAIC’s claims that trial court’s May 31, 2023 final judgment was erroneous and rendered judgment that Menchaca take nothing on his counterclaims against HAIC.
ZALMA OPINION
It is axiomatic that an appraisal award sets the amount of loss in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. The jury was either improperly instructed or ignored the law when it was established that the insurer paid the full amount of the appraisal award in full with interest. An insurer that pays everything it owes under the terms of the policy cannot be held for tort and bad faith damages.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
