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.
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 ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
