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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
