Windstorm Damage Insurance Claim

After an agent of Met Lloyds inspected our client’s property, the insurance company refused to tender payment for full damages owed to our client under the policy by claiming the damages were not caused by a covered loss, in this case, windstorm damage.  Our client retained the services of an engineer to establish for Met Lloyds that the damages sustained were caused by the high wind, a covered loss.  Instead of hiring its own engineer, Met Lloyds and its adjuster simply restated its denial under the policy.  Met Lloyds investigation was outcome-oriented and its failure to retain an engineer to investigate the claim conclusively shows that Met Lloyds’ and its agent failed to properly investigate this claim.  Subsequent to the inspection, Met Lloyds and its agent issued a damage estimate that failed to fully quantify and explain the damage done to the structures located on the property, thus demonstrating that they did not conduct a thorough and fair investigation of the premises.  Met Lloyds’ agent attributed the damage to the pool, wooden fence and the decorative fence were caused by water damage and/or earth movement, both of which may be excluded events under the client’s policy.  The agent also chose to ignore that the client’s next neighbor’s wind damage claim for their playhouse, which was adjacent to clients’ fence, was covered by their insurance company (Traveler’s).   In fact, at least one of the shingles was embedded in clients’ fence indicating the significantly high wind speeds and wind damage caused in the area.  Rather than employ the services of an engineer to fully investigate the cause of this windstorm damage, Met Lloyds simply found exclusionary language by which it intended to deny the claim.  Met Lloyds and its agent failed to fairly evaluate and adjust our client’s claim as they are obligated to do under the terms of the policy and Texas law.  By failing to properly investigate the claim and by issuing a full denial of coverage, Met Lloyds and its agent engaged in unfair settlement practices by misrepresenting material facts to our client, such as the true cause of their loss.  Met Lloyds and its agent also failed to provide our client a reasonable explanation as to why they were not compensating our client’s covered losses.  A lawsuit was filed, and the case was settled before trial.