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.
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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
