As the remnants of Hurricane Harvey make their way out of Texas, attention now focuses on rebuilding efforts in the communities affected by this unprecedented weather event.
However, misinformation has been circulating on social media and in some news reports about a new law known as House Bill 1774—which was passed by the Texas Legislature this year and takes effect September 1, 2017—and the potential impact this law may have on affected property owners.
What does the new law do?
HB 1774 only deals with the process when a property owner sues an insurance company (or its agent) over a claim-related dispute (i.e., when the property owner believes they are owed more money than the insurance company offers).
But this situation is rare. According to the Texas Department of Insurance, only about 2% of claims each year result in this type of litigation.
While homeowners should always file claims as soon as possible, the new law will not change the claims process, no matter whether claims are filed before or after September 1.
Here are four key points to remember about the new law:
- The legislation does not change the process for filing a property insurance claim, whether a claim is filed before or after September 1.
- This legislation deals with how lawsuits arising from disputed claims are handled in court.
- Claims relating to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are governed by federal law.
- Claims relating to Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) policies are not subject to the provisions of this bill.
Read this PDF for more information about the new law.
Where to learn more
Texans affected by the recent severe weather events have access to several resources:
- Texas REALTORS® Relief Fund: REALTORS® and members of the public can apply to receive up to $1,000
- The State Bar of Texas offers free legal help through their legal hotline at 800-504-7030.
- FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Improvement Program provides support and services to disaster survivors.
- The Texas Department of Insurance offers assistance resolving insurance-related complaints.
I just commented about this on another blog (http://www.facebook.com/Dennis.Paul.HD129/posts/1666252300061244?comment_id=1666288756724265&reply_comment_id=1667143333305474&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D). I was thinking the NFIP wouldn’t be effected by this as they are Federal policies. Thanks for the clarification!
TAR explanation of changes is misleading. I would not have expected this from TAR but perhaps I am naïve. You say “This legislation deals with how lawsuits arising from disputed claims are handled in court”. Does date of filing a claim affect how a court treats suits brought against insurance companies? Did legislation make law retroactive to include current lawsuits.
Is David J Davis on of the authors of his pro insurance company legislation?
Yes I’m an author of my own comments, and I possess another (apparently unique) skill. It’s called the ability to read. In this case, the bill. It’s online & free: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB01774F.htm
The 2% litigation percentage, even if accurate (was this from the insurance industry?), will surely go up with the recent storm events throughout Texas. As someone who had to sue Farmer’s Insurance to get paid under the uninsured / underinsured portion of the policy, I know what these affected homeowners will go through. Rest assured, the insurance companies will use every technicality available under this untested (in court) law to wear down the policyholder…the date of claim being one of them.
As previously stated, the date of claim has no bearing, or is NOT affected by this new law. Read the law in my prior comments.
Thanks David. I did read the law. As my comments stated…the law has not yet been to court and those of us who have been around the legal profession for some time understand that a good attorney will use EVERY avenue possible to keep their client from paying out. Mark my words, this WILL be one avenue that will be tested by the industry.
In light of the topic of this OP which is the FAKE NEWS that is being broadcast by people (mostly on social media) but I understand even some main stream media, this new law has nothing to to with any gained advantage of when an insured files their insurance claim (especially those from Hurricane Harvey,as the OP has already pointed out that the majority of claims from Hurricane Harvey are either going to be from TWIA or NFIP, both of which are affected by the new law) as the new law deals with lawsuits that are filed after September 1,… Read more »
David, I feel the “don’t you think it is fair” comment seems to overlook the fact that if I finally felt I have no choice left but to file a lawsuit against my insurance company, that same company would “already” have in their possession an insurance claim filed by me… and they would have already had time choose whether or not to work with me on this claim. As someone who has had to sue a major insurer in the past over “Hurricane Related Damages”, I can tell you that I would not have been happy to find out that… Read more »
Mr. Davis: Your reading of the law may be incorrect, as lawyers much smarter than me are arguing left and right (on somewhat private Facebook forums for lawyers) about whether filing notice of the claim prior to September 1, 2017 will allow a subsequent lawsuit based on that claim to be subject to the prior law, instead of the new law. Further, as Mr. Christian posits above, requiring a policyholder to wait sixty days prior to filing suit is not fair to policy holders who are trying to repair their home and have a dispute with their insurer. The law… Read more »
I’m disappointed with TAR for misleading readers. I feel that TAR didn’t perform due diligence before publishing this specious article. It reads like it was written by an insurance industry lobbyist. Although it appears to all be true, it doesn’t tell the whole story, thus undermining TAR’s credibility. Whether intended or not, such assertions cause TAR to be complicit in looking out for insurance companies more than the insured. TAR should have no dog in that fight except maybe for promoting private property rights. I believe TAR does that best by advocating for the insured. They are the ones whose… Read more »
Byron Barclay, To start off with why do you automatically assume that a lawyer is much smarter than anyone else simply because (s)he happens to be a lawyer? That one statement alone almost disqualifies any further statement you make. As for the fact that there are private forums (made up of nothing but lawyers,) I’m quite certain those exist. Why wouldn’t they? We have ours why can’t, or shouldn’t they have theirs? What are they debating? My guess would be the limit on attorney fees the new law places into effect. Afterall that’s about all the new law really does.… Read more »
Who is to say that they (TAR) are advocating for anybody in this post? I see a blog post that points out, and helps clarify what a codified law is while hopefully quieting false reports about the law change.
Right on target Tom.
Mr. Davis: Thank you for your lengthy response to my post. The fact that we all, to a man, believe your article itself to be slanted and misguided certainly tells me that my initial thoughts on your article, and your bias, were correct. Were I more interested in your thoughts or opinions, I could address and refute your response point by point, but clearly by the tone of your responses to each of the comments here criticizing your article, it is readily apparent that you are much smarter than any of us who have deigned to criticize your opinions on… Read more »
If you had originally wanted an intelligent discussion or debate why then did you fill your comment with so many fallacies?