Policy Limit is the Most an Insured Can Recover for a Loss
Post 5174
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-free-liability-claims-consultant-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-dqrbc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6y1wvu-insurer-free-of-liability-claims-consultant-not.html and at https://youtu.be/Te7UsKzhGNU, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Water Damage Special Limit of Liability Enforced
In Abraham & Co. Inc v. Markel Insurance Company And Hirschfield Risk Services, Inc. D/B/A H&H Claims Consultants, No. 14-24-00242-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (August 19, 2025) dealt with damages caused by Winter Storm Uri in February 2021 when pipes at Abraham's location burst, causing water damage to numerous rugs.
KEY FACTS:
Insurance Policy:
Markel issued an insurance policy to Abraham, effective from November 16, 2020, to November 16, 2021, with a liability limit of $2 million for covered property and a special limit of $750,000 for water damage.
Claim and Dispute:
Abraham filed a claim under the policy and Markel paid only $750,000 based on an endorsement limiting liability for water damage.
Legal Proceedings:
Abraham filed suit against Markel for breach of contract and other claims, and against H&H for negligence and violations of the Texas Insurance Code.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS:
Coverage Limit:
The trial court concluded that the policy's unambiguous language limited the coverage for Abraham's claim to $750,000.
Negligence Claims:
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for H&H on the negligent claims handling but erred in dismissing Abraham's general negligence claim.
Extra-Contractual Claims:
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Abraham's extra-contractual claims against Markel and H&H.
CONCLUSIONS:
It was undisputed that Abraham's claim was based on a loss caused by water damage and that Markel has paid $750,000 on this claim and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice Abraham's breach-of-contract claim against Markel.
To the extent the trial court granted summary judgment as to Abraham's claim for negligent claims handling, dismissed the claim, and determined that H&H cannot be liable based on a theory of negligent claims handling, the trial court did not err, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
To the extent the trial court granted summary judgment as to Abraham's General Negligence Claim, dismissed the claim, and determined that H&H cannot be liable on a theory of general negligence, the trial court erred and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Did The Trial Court Err In Granting Summary Judgment As To Abraham's Negligence Claims Against H&H?
In part of its first issue and in its second issue Abraham challenges the trial court's granting of summary judgment as to its negligence claims against H&H, the claims consultants.
To the extent the trial court granted summary judgment as to Abraham's claim for negligent claims handling, dismissed the claim, and determined that H&H cannot be liable based on a theory of negligent claims handling, the trial court did not err, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed. To the extent the trial court granted summary judgment as to Abraham's General Negligence Claim, dismissed the claim, and determined that H&H cannot be liable on a theory of general negligence, the trial court erred.
ZALMA OPINION
Many insurance companies do not have a claims staff to deal with all claims and retain the services of independent claims adjusters and consultants like H&H. The Court of Appeals found that everything that the insurer did was appropriate it still allowed the case to go forward against H&H who only can act as an agent of the insurer and, if it acted negligently, it can be liable for any damages resulting from its negligence. How, if the claim was handled appropriately and the insured paid the limit of liability of the policy, the claims handler could be negligent is difficult to prognosticate.
(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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
