Insurance coverage:
Ahead of the litigation trends

During the last decade, DRH&R has offered thoughtful and practical representation to major insurers and corporate insureds regarding their insurance policy coverage disputes. The firm has combined a careful investigation with a clear understanding of the applicable policy language and solid comprehension of insurance law to develop a statewide reputation with regard to coverage issues. We have provided experienced counsel in a wide range of coverage matters involving all types of insurance policies and in all types of situations from complicated industrial incidents, homeowner's claims and personal injury claims to "cutting edge" issues such as Stowers issues and mold claims.

Currently, because of DRH&R's background in sophisticated coverage issues, we were requested to assist a major insurer in handling a large volume docket of mold litigation. Over the past three years, insurance companies have been deluged with mold claims, which historically had never been asserted as a covered peril. The impact of these claims has reverberated throughout the insurance industry, forcing one carrier to attempt to pull out of the Texas market and others to increase premiums as a result of the cost to defend these claims. We were asked to assist in handling these claims around the state by applying more than 15 years of coverage experience combined with solid, proven trial practice.

In October 2002, DRH&R obtained a significant victory in South Texas by obtaining a zero mold verdict against plaintiffs seeking extraordinary damages in "Flores v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's Company." The verdict is significant as it is the first major mold case to go to trial since the $32 million verdict against Farmers, which put mold litigation on the map. The federal jury in McAllen, Texas denied all damages to the plaintiffs on the basis that the carrier did not breach its insurance policy by failing to pay for claimed costs to repair the home based on showing that the claims were unjustified and that the plaintiffs were responsible for any damage in the home for failure to timely report the problems to the insurance company. During the trial, DRH&R successfully excluded plaintiffs' expert medical testimony for failure to establish any scientific link between mold and physical injuries. As a result, the plaintiffs were forced to reduce their jury demand to mold remediation and replacement costs.

In other cases, DRH&R has been retained to assist in pursuing significant industrial claims involving disputes about the nature or extent of coverage under boiler and machinery, builders' risk and CGL policies. The claims involved substantial property damage and business interruption losses.