Yolanda Gonzalez v. American National Lloyds Insurance Company (No. 13-23-00319-CV; December 19, 2024) arose from a claim for damage to an insured’s home resulting from Hurricane Hanna in July 2020. The insurer inspected the property shortly after the storm and assessed the damage at about $6,400 after depreciation, which was below the insured’s deductible. Following receipt of a demand letter from the insured, the insurer conducted a reinspection and then filed suit asserting extracontractual claims under the Insurance Code and DTPA. The insurer followed by issuing a check to the insured for $1,200 in additional damages discovered by the reinspection. The insured requested appraisal, which estimated the cost of damages at a little more than $31,000. Taking into account the deductible and depreciation, the insurer paid about $15,000. The insured moved to set aside the appraisal, while the insurer moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the insured’s motion and granted the insurer’s. The insured appealed.
In an opinion by (now Chief) Justice Tijerina, the court of appeals affirmed. The court observed that the appraisal took place in accordance with the appropriate procedure, the report was signed by one of the appraisers and the umpire, and the insurer tendered the amount to the insured. The appraisal was thus binding and enforceable absent a reason for setting it aside. The insured first asserted that the insurer’s appraiser was biased and incompetent, thus invalidating the appraisal. Since the insured did not make this argument at the summary judgment stage, however, the court of appeals could not consider it and reverse summary judgment on that basis. Not taking no for an answer, the insured argued that the appraiser who signed the appraisal did not agree with the appraisal and signed it under the mistaken belief that it would merely “move the litigation along,” not potentially end it. This argument didn’t fly either, since by signing the award the appraiser certified that he conscientiously performed his duties and appraised the value of all losses. Given that the appraisal was unambiguous on this point, and that there was no evidence that the umpire or the insurer were dishonest or that there was any confusion as to the damage to the insured’s property, the court enforced the award.
Next, the court determined that the insurer’s tender of payment of the appraised losses extinguished the insured’s claim under Chapter 542 because the insurer paid the maximum amount of statutory damages plus interest, as required by § 542.060(a), Insurance Code. Observing that the Dallas Court of Appeals had held that an insurer that pays the appraisal award plus statutory interest satisfies § 542.060 and no genuine issue of material fact remains as to liability under the statute. Rosales v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., 672 S.W.3d 146, 154 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2023, pet. denied). Since the insured provided no briefing as to why Rosales was incorrectly decided, the court declined to do it for her.
We applaud the court of appeals for this ruling. It’s gratifying to see that a body of jurisprudence properly interpreting (in our view) the reforms to wind and hail claims is taking hold.
