A: There is a backlog due to orders banning jury trial and criminal backlog. There is a precedent – Bexar County issued mandatory standing order during the 2016 hail storm litigation including mandatory discovery and mediation.
A: In terms of complexity, business interruption, more likely to involve public adjusters.
A: Yes, even under 542A. Removal depends on amount in controversy and election.
A: Yes for CAT claims.
A: That will depend on the claim and policy of course, but very generally speaking, mold is commonly excluded or subject to very specific provisions relative to accidental water loss, typically with sub-limits. Anti-concurrent causation exclusions could come into play (e.g., defective work/construction) on roofing claims, partial denials with respect to Building Code requirements depending on limits, and “other structure” issues such as damage to fencing, swimming pools.
A: Insurance Code specific to insurance policy claims; DTPA is for “consumers” in sales/services transactions, including insurance. The DTPA provisions are directed at deceptive trade practices, typically occurring at the time of sale as opposed to claims servicing. However, unlike the Ins. Code, the DTPA includes a cause of action for unconscionability. A violation of one can be brought under the other.
A: Essentially yes: actuals/economics, plus fees, plus mental anguish and up to trebling for knowing/intentional violations.
A: Unconscionability, attorney's fees. For breach of common law, no fees, no trebling, and punitive damages subject to clear and convincing evidence, other statutory limitations for punitive damages.
A: Recent case: Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. James, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6719 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2020, pet. filed). Insurer's basis for ignoring insured's estimates --the fact that its adjuster hadn't viewed reported damages-was not reasonable and contradicted inclusion of some of the same damage in a prior estimate by the adjuster.