Most commercial insurance policies require a proof of loss when there is a disagreement over the amount of the loss. The Policy usually reads:
Action Against Us
No one may bring an action against us in any way related to the existence or amount of coverage , or the amount of loss for which coverage is sought unless:
C) ….you have previously provided to us a signed sworn proof of loss…no later than 91 days prior to commencing any action against us.
The proof of loss is set forth as a post-loss obligation but Courts have disagreed on whether they are a mandatory prerequisite to filing suit. The proof of loss is a formalized statement on a form usually provided by the insurance company. It requires a sworn, notarized statement by the insured and usually contains information including:
Oftentimes an insured will attach an estimate from a contractor to substantiate the amount of the loss. An insured will also separate the loss into categories. For example the proof of loss may list separate damage for remediation, construction, code upgrades, emergency repairs, business interruption etc.
On occasion, an adjuster will ask the insured to submit a proof of loss that has the amounts already filled in. Or the adjuster will ask the insured to fill in the undisputed amounts that the insurance company has agreed to pay.
I advise my clients to fill in the proof of loss with the amounts that my client claims are owed. This statement should be as accurate and complete as possible because this will serve as a foundation for any later disputes you may have regarding the claim. And since it is sworn to, a lawyer for an insurance carrier can and will use this against you in the event you are ever asked to give an Examination Under Oath or deposition in your case.
So what happens if you haven’t filed a proof of loss? Actually you might be surprised to know that, in Texas, the Courts have taken a measured, practical approach to this issue.
Texas cases hold that the primary purpose of a proof of loss provision in a policy is to allow the insurer to investigate the incident close in time to the occurrence so that it may accurately determine its rights and liabilities under the Policy. See Stonewall Ins. Co. v Modern Expl. Co., 757 S.W.2d 432,435 (Tex.App. Dallas 1988).
However there is Texas case law which stands for the proposition that a “timely notice provision was not an essential part of the bargained for exchange under [an] occurrence based policy.” PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Ins., 243 S.W.2d 630, 635 (Tex. 2008).
Therefore the question becomes whether the failure to submit a sworn Proof of Loss has prejudiced the insurer. See PAJ, 243 S.W.2d at 634-35.
The Texas Supreme Court explains prejudice as follows:
In determining the materiality of the breach, courts will consider the extent to which a party will be deprived of the benefit that it could have reasonably anticipated from full performance. The less the non-breaching party is deprived of the expected benefit, the less material the breach.
Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. 1994)
In these cases the court should balance whether a failure to provide a proof of loss deprives the insurer of the benefit of being able to fully investigate the claim. Since most insurance companies adjust and investigate the loss regardless of when or whether they receive a proof of loss, it could be difficult for an insurer to prove that it was prejudiced by a failure to provide a proof of loss.
What am I trying to say? An accurate proof of loss can be critical to the claims process. But if you haven’t provided a proof of loss, don’t be duped into thinking you have no rights or remedies. Consult a lawyer to determine whether you still have a claim.
“ Tim represented us in a dispute with our insurance company over roof damage due to a hail storm in the Dallas area. We were very disheartened by the constant denials and dishonest treatment we were receiving from the insurance carrier, and Tim counseled us to remain patient while he systematically put together expert opinions and facts that supported our claim. Eventually we were able to settle our case and...
Law & Litigation “Tim’s knowledge and insight regarding not just the law, but business and human nature in general was greatly appreciated and relied upon as we navigated through a difficult situation. Tim has my utmost admiration and respect both on a personal and professional basis.”
“When faced with the prospect of complex business litigation in Dallas County district court, Mr. Hoch came highly recommended. In short order, he was able to quickly understand and master the details of our case and map out a very cost-effective, efficient legal strategy. After a series of quick wins in court, our opponent came to the table with a highly satisfactory settlement. Mr. Hoch’s ability to effectively tell a...
“We have hired Tim Hoch for a number of different legal matters including property insurance claims and collection matters. He understands our business and the need for quick, cost efficient results. Tim has a no nonsense approach when dealing with legal matters. In my business, that approach is refreshing. We look forward to using Tim in the future to handle our litigation.”