Award Signed by Two of Three Appraisers Binding on Insured and Insurer
Post 5168
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6xj16m-appraisal-award-sets-amount-of-loss.html and at https://youtu.be/XBy4m31c0AM, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.Dispute Over Extent of Damages is not Bad Faith
Kelly Mallady filed a lawsuit against Homeowners of America Insurance Company due to damages sustained from a nearby explosion in January 2020 that the insurer rejected in part.
In Kelly Mallady v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 14-24-00147-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (August 7, 2025) resolution was obtained of the disputes.
CASE BACKGROUND:
1 Mallady’s homeowners insurance policy was effective from September 15, 2019, to September 15, 2020 .
2 The initial claim was acknowledged, and an independent adjuster estimated the property damage to be $13,014.79, covering only the dwelling and fence.
3 Mallady invoked appraisal, demanding $247,860.40 for property and contents damages, plus $10,000 in attorney’s fees .
APPRAISAL AWARDS:
1 The first appraisal award (April award) set the loss for the dwelling at $24,000 replacement cost value and $21,900 actual cash value .
2 The April award did not address contents damages and was later voided.
3 A subsequent appraisal award (June award) assessed damages at $215,616.65 and $145,778.70 actual cash value, covering the dwelling, fence, and contents .
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
1 Homeowners of America filed a motion to set aside the June award and confirm the April award, arguing the April award was binding once signed by two parties .
2 The trial court set aside the June award and confirmed the April award .
3 Mallady filed suit alleging breach of contract, bad faith, deceptive trade practices, and other claims .
4 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Homeowners of America, which Mallady appealed .
COURT’S DECISION:
1 The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
2 The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Mallady’s breach of contract claim.
3 The court sustained several of Mallady’s issues challenging the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
Breach of Contract Claim:
The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Mallady’s breach of contract claim. The April award did not set the amount of loss for contents, and the evidence showed that content damages were to be addressed in a separate award after inspection of the property. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment was incorrect as there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the contents damages.
Appraisal Awards:
The award, which assessed damages only for the dwelling, was signed by two of the three parties, making it binding. However, the June award, which included damages for the dwelling, fence, and contents, was issued later and signed by McLeod and Choate. The trial court set aside the June award and confirmed the April award, but the appellate court found that the trial court erred in this decision.
Appraisal clauses estop a party from contesting the issue of damages in a lawsuit based on an insurance contract. If a party seeks to avoid an appraisal award, the burden of proof is theirs to raise an issue of material fact as to why the resolution they contractually agreed to should be set aside. If the appraisal award is not set aside, this contractual process settles the issue of damages, and settlement of the full amount owed estops the insured from bringing a breach of contract claim against the insurer.
Examination Under Oath:
The trial court’s order requiring Choate to submit to an examination under oath was vacated. The court concluded that the policy did not require Choate to submit to an examination under oath as he was not considered Mallady’s representative. However, since Choate as a independent appraiser is not a representative of the insured he may not be compelled to testify at EUO.
Independent Injury Rule:
Mallady’s claims for mental anguish and attorney’s fees were not considered independent injuries that could support her extra-contractual claims. The court found that the mental anguish damages stemmed from the denial of policy benefits and were not truly independent injuries.
ZALMA OPINION
Once an appraisal award becomes final – signed by two of the three appraisers – the amount of loss is established. When there is a second appraisal making findings of loss and damage more than $200,000 greater than the first, and final award, the original award must be honored. However, since the first award failed to consider contents damages, it was incomplete and another appraisal of contents was required. The breach of contract can be tried but the bad faith claim was eliminated.
You can find a permanent public version of the document here: https://public.fastcase.com/jaEE2PXzRXmZ99jOLMt1IuUELJK35ulC0JH4o2YTkiYe9ytM%2bHEzVcf4Tgc1Kro9RcFaidgUpgfDK0dIpLN22Q%3d%3d
(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...
