Addressing a host of issues on appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against the insurer for property damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Henriquez, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11391 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016), withdrawn and substituted by 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12766 (Tex. Ct. app. Dec. 1, 2016).
The insureds alleged property damage to their home caused by the hurricane. The roof was damaged, resulting in interior water damage. Sheetrock, exterior bricks, windows, walls cabinets and insulation throughout the entire home were damaged. The insureds also alleged that the home shifted during the storm, causing the foundation to not be level and the ceilings and walls to crack. Personal property within the dwelling was also damaged.
National denied the claim. An independent adjuster determined that the roof leaks, if any, were due to flashing that was not installed. The adjuster did not recall seeing any water damage in the house and felt he was not qualified to determine whether the cracks in the brick were due to hurricane-force winds. The independent adjuster recommended that the file be closed without any payment because the loss, estimated as $572, was less that the insureds' deductible of $1,000. Subsequently, National denied the claim.
At trial, the insureds' expert engineer testified. The engineer had not actually visited the property, but sent another employee so that the cost would be less expensive. The employee took photographs and reported back to the engineer. Broken window panes and cracks in the brick facade of the home were found. A door was no longer functioning because the foundation had shifted.
After trial, the jury awarded damages of $56,700. Another $100,000 was awarded for National's knowingly engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. Further, the jury found that National filed to comply with its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement when liability became clear and by refusing to pay the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. The jury awarded the insureds $10,000 for loss of use and enjoyment of their property caused by National's failure to comply with its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court also awarded attorneys' fees.
Several issues were appealed. One such issue was National complaint that the trial court erred by allowing the expert engineer to testify because he did not inspect the property, take any photographs, nor write his own expert report. The engineer testified that he had handled more than 150 files by sending an inspector from his office to damaged sites. He studied the photographs and read the reports of damage. This was used to calculate the range of wind pressures to which the property was exposed during the hurricane, among other things.
The appellate court concluded that the engineer's testimony did not merely consist of his bare opinion. Rather, it was supported by sufficient data and proper methodology and was not conclusory. National's complaint that the expert did not personally inspect the property, photograph it, or personally write the report was without merit.
Accordingly, the trial court properly considered the opinions of the engineer. The judgment was affirmed in all respects.