Archive for new-filings
Metro Mini Storage Liable To Nine Plaintiff-Customers After Fire Outbreak At A Commercial Storage Facility
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed suit against Metro Mini Storage (“Metro”) for premises liability violations and actions of negligence surrounding an intentional and deliberate act of arson at the storage facility. Our nine clients were Metro’s customers and entrusted the company with their valuable personal property.
Metro marketed and promoted safe, secure, climate-controlled storage units, falsely representing a secure surrounding fence and site monitoring by an on-site guard and various types of surveillance. Accordingly, Metro entered into contracts with each plaintiff whereby it guaranteed these safekeeping initiatives in exchange for timely monthly payments.
October 27, 2013, fire burned across Metro’s premises, destroying units containing our clients’ property that together valued over $550,000 dollars. An official investigation ruled the blaze was a deliberate act of arson. Further inspection revealed negligence as a large opening in the fence, which purportedly secured the premises, allowed the arsonist to effortlessly enter and exit the grounds. This hole continued to remain open and unrepaired by Metro for some time.
Metro negligent misrepresentations concerning security measures is also a breach the contractual agreement and created unsafe premises. Owners of property and businesses have a duty to protect customers and tenants from unreasonable dangers, this includes taking steps necessary to learn of and alleviate dangerous conditions.
To make matters worse, following the fire our clients were denied access to their own storag units as they attempted to gather personal belongings. Even after legal counsel was retained to demand entry, Metro continued to prohibit access and turn over property. Instead, fraudulently and with malice, Metro demolished the facility and destroyed the site with our clients’ property still inside.
The defendant’s many violations continue to subject our clients to significant financial harm, all of which remains uncompensated. Our clients’ losses will be addressed and Doyle Raizner LLP will seek the appropriate compensation for this substantial property loss.
If you or someone you love has been harmed by unsafe conditions
AIG Insurance Liable to Fight Attendant for Violations of The Arizona Workers’ Compensation Act Following Her Injuries
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed a workers’ compensation bad faith lawsuit against AIG Insurance (“AIG”) on behalf of a plaintiff who experienced denied claims leading to permanent physical damage. This case is filed in United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona.
Our client, an experienced flight attendant for Mesa Airlines, damaged her lower back while performing routine security checks before a flight began its take-off roll. Her bending-twisting motion while securing a passenger triggered spinal pain and immediately prevented her ability to continue flight management duties. She then experienced a cycle of subpar medical evaluations as both a physician at Concentra Medical Clinic and AIG’s Independent Medical Examiner (IME) concluded she only had a minor strain.
Continuing discomfort compelled this plaintiff to seek her own medical evaluations. Her independent physician found microsurgery was needed to surgically decompress two bulging spinal disks from the accident.
In violation of AIG’s obligation to process our client’s claim in ‘good faith and fair dealing” the insurer ignored the private physician’s findings and wrongfully denied all surgery requests. Good faith actually requires workers’ comp providers seek out and consider any medical evaluations beneficial to the insured. AIG’s illegal outcome-driven approach continued as it filed a Notice of Claim Status form with the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) which directly resulted in a rejection of all benefits.
Without assistance, and more than seven months after the incident, our client had no option besides using her own insurance to repair her excruciating disfigurement. She received no reimbursements following the surgery and had to hire a lawyer to secure compensation.
Though this client finally received a binding award from the ICA, AIG delayed another ten months, withholding repayment for the surgery, deductibles, or even her travel costs to the IME examinations that AIG scheduled hundreds of miles from her home. This defendant even benefitted from its unlawful tactics by successfully negotiating for lower payments with the surgeon and
Commercial Property Suit Begins Against Northfield Insurance For Bad Faith and Insurance Fraud After Plaintiff’s Business Suffered Fire Damages
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed suit against Northfield Insurance Company (“Northfield”) and Executive Insurance Professionals (“Executive”), due to the defendants’ violations of Texas insurance laws.
Our client owns a furniture store and purchased insurance to specifically cover business operations, including a furniture showroom building along with a large warehouse that housed inventory. With full knowledge of how our client’s business was structured and what property he desired to cover, Executive and Northfield still falsely represented that these areas would be protected in the case of a fire.
March 17, 2014, a catastrophic fire broke out at the property, torching the warehouse and showrooms and leaving upwards of $900,000 dollars in devastation. Our client’s valid claim for benefits was denied by Northfield in a letter claiming that only a portion of the property – the showroom – was covered, while the warehouse at the same address was not. The defendants knowingly engaged in acts of clear deception with the intention of our client believing them which also constitutes fraud and violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Northfield also breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to our client by refusing to properly investigate and cure the discrepancy and effectively denying insurance benefits without a reasonable basis.
The failure of this insurer to honor its insurance contract has caused substantial damages beyond the costs of repair. Destruction of the showrooms, warehouse, and its housed inventory, caused significant reductions in building value, monthly income, and level of customer satisfaction. Property damages continue to worsen due to our client receiving nothing to repair even a portion of the ruin. The defendants’ prohibited actions also cause mental and emotional turmoil as our client’s future still hangs in the balances.
The Fire Insurance Claims Practice of Doyle Raizner is pursuing the maximum legal compensation for this client. Our firm enjoys a reputation for case-building strategies that have been successful in holding many of
State Farm LLoyds Sued For Insurance Fraud After San Antonio Wind and Hail Storm Damaged Plaintiff’s Commercial Property
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed suit against State Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”) and its assigned claims adjuster for defendants’ violations of the Texas Insurance Code and similar laws designed to protect consumers against fraud and other deceptive business practices.
Our clients, owners of a business complex with a health care center, church, and multiple other tenants, faithfully paid premiums for many years, trusting State Farm would respond to claims of loss according to its insurance contract. On March 31, 2013, their commercial property was substantially damaged as hail, pushed by substantial winds, tore through Bexar County.
State Farm responded to the claim submittal by assigning a claims adjuster who lacked the level of training necessary to conduct a fair and adequate investigation. Without the proper skill-set this adjuster began denying obvious indications of wind, hail, and water damage throughout our client’s extensive property. He even went as far as refusing to re-inspect the property after receiving independent storm damage reports composed by both professional engineers and licensed property inspectors. In the end, though the property damages have been measured to be hundreds of thousands of dollars, the owners received nothing because the insurer’s initial estimate didn’t exceed the policy’s $5,000 deductible.
State Farm violated its duty of good faith fairly and fair dealing to our clients through its refusal to review and consider all evidence supporting our client’s complaints. The Texas Insurance Code demands that those insured receive reasonable explanations for each claim processing decision, but this adjuster’s reason for not re-investigating the property was that State Farm “feels” the claim was properly evaluated the first time. The defendants were well aware of the many risks our clients were exposed to, but acted with conscious disregard of the situation. These actions violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and also constitute fraud.
Our clients continue to sustain damages due to the defendants’ improper denial of claim benefits. Each business tenant
A Phoenix police detective has joined 10 firefighters in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit against York Risk Services (“York”). The lawsuit asserts that these first responders’ workers compensation claims were denied though a scheme York designed to withhold and/or wrongfully deprive these first responders of their worker’s compensation benefits.
This newly added client was transporting evidence in her police car when she was struck in a side collision by another motor vehicle. She immediately experienced debilitating pains throughout her lower back, but bypassed the emergency room to ensure the safe passage of evidence and protect the chain of custody. Our client timely reported her injury and initially received a fusion surgery of her L5-SI in June of 2010.
Though a treating physician took her off work and found additional back fusion surgery was needed, an adjuster for York ignored these medical findings, and closed her claim for benefits. York then falsely alleged that our client was released to work. This denial was a fraudulent communication as the worker’s comp providers knew our client was not capable of working.
York’s own Independent Medical Examiner (IME) along with the The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) later confirmed the need for surgery and even found the injury was related to an industrial accident. Unfortunately, even after the ICA’s found in favor of our client, there was still a refusal to pay benefits owed. York instead created pretextual excuses which were once again rejected by the Commission. The denials became cyclical. In all, our client received at least three ICA awards and has fought tooth and nail against York for surgery and benefits. Ultimately, benefits were paid, but the delays in paying for these clear medical needs were unjustifiable.
The postponed surgeries caused her permanent disfigurement, even forcing her into early retirement. Our client nearly lost her home to foreclosure as a result of the failure to pay the necessary
Lloyds Underwriters Sued In Federal Court for Breaching Insurance Policy Conditions after Hail Damaged Multiple Apartment Complexes
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed a commercial property insurance lawsuit against Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London (“Lloyds”), and their adjustment team, for multiple breaches of its insurance contract with the plaintiffs, along with violations of the Texas Insurance Code.
Our clients, two corporations, acquired insurance coverage from Lloyds for three separate apartment complexes, containing 74 distinct housing units, and they paid their premiums faithfully under the insurance contract.
On May 28, 2013, an unbelievable 2-4 feet of hail battered Amarillo, leaving paths of torn shingles and damaging exterior bricks, windows, decks, and HVAC units throughout the properties. The storm of ice opened holes in the apartment buildings, causing water to ruin insulation, plywood, ceiling tiles, and more.
Although our client, like thousands of Amarillo policyholders, honored their end of the insurance contract, Lloyds unfortunately failed to do so. An adjuster with insufficient training was assigned and concluded damage to one complex did not exceed its $4,500.00 deductible, an impossibility due to the storms record-breaking magnitude. Yet an investigation by independent experts documents over $2 million in damages across all three complexes.
Rather than giving proper consideration to the independent expert estimates, the defendants placed their interests of cutting costs above of our clients’ needs, paying only 5% of total damages. This type of conduct is a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing insurance companies must maintain with their customers. This duty required Lloyds to seek information that was fair and favorable to our clients and to take all reasonable steps to evaluate and settle the claims. The Texas Insurance Code requires as much, and further mandates prompt payment of claims. Due to Lloyds’ unreasonable denials, proper benefits are still being withheld, greatly exceeding the statutory prompt payment laws in Texas.
The Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides additional protection to consumers who are victims of deceptive, improper, and illegal practices. Lloyds violated his law and engaged
Travelers Insurance Is Liable for Improper Claim Handling after Two Hail Storms Destroyed Plaintiff’s Commercial Property
Doyle Raizner LLP has filed suit against The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company (“Travelers”) and their assigned adjuster, for claim processing violations following a Dallas area hail storm.
Our client, a small business owner of a complex containing three thriving businesses, purchased property insurance for peace of mind, believing there would be protection in case catastrophe struck. In 2011 and 2012, separate hail storms tore through Dallas, hammering this industrial building and severely impacting the roofs, insulations, ceilings, windows, and HVAC units of each store and their adjoined warehouses.
Upon filing a claim, Travelers responded in ways that would be any business owner’s worst nightmare. An improperly trained and biased adjustment team assigned to the case conducted an inadequate investigation, denying obvious wind and hail damage and failing to pay benefits a reasonable carrier would accept. Though an independent team of building professionals, including engineers, confirmed the damage and provided a damage estimation of $1.6 million dollars, the defendants refused to consider this and decided to recognize only 14% of the total destruction.
This conduct is a clear violation as insurance carriers have a duty to seek out evidence that supports the insured’s claim of loss, instead of acting as adversaries. Relying on investigations that encourage delaying and denying claim benefits is a breach of an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing to the insured.
Storms of any kind can produce chain reactions of property damage. Our client’s wind and hail specialists detailed how hail stones penetrated the Spray polyurethane roof (“SPR”), creating water damage to the layers of insulation and ceilings below. But to cut costs, and in violation of the Texas Insurance Code, the defendants considered the majority of damage pre-existing, blaming the roof’s installation and even innocent building tenants for the extensive water intrusions. These excuses violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and constitute fraud.
Our client’s damages are substantial. The denials of proper benefits
Doyle Raizner Sues Safety National and Matrix For Withholding Worker’s Comp Benefits After Nurse Endures Botched Surgery
On behalf of plaintiff, Doyle Raizner LLP filed suit against Safety National Casualty Corporation (“Safety National”), Matrix Absence Management, Inc., (“Matrix”), and the assigned adjuster for their combined efforts in delaying and denying proper worker’s compensations benefits.
On June 4, 2009, our client tore her left meniscus while at work as a full-time nurse for the Yuma Regional Medical Center. Initially, the defendants responded to her claim appropriately, providing payments for surgery and the weeks of physical therapy that followed. Afterwards however, she began experiencing excruciating pain in the area, along with weakness and significant muscle atrophy above the knee.
Apparently deciding that they had paid all that they ever wanted to pay for needed medical care, the defendants sent our client to an Independent Medical Examiner (IME) who provided cortisone injections and concluded the knee “just needs time to heal.” The adjuster then closed the case, noting only a 2% disability. Our client continued facing pain that greatly restricted her ability to walk or engage in any activity requiring normal movement capabilities. Two years later, client’s personal physician discovered that a non-absorbable device from the initial surgery was left inside her knee.
The adjuster responded by requiring her to see yet another IME, who again performed an inadequate examination and determined there was nothing present hindering mobility. In violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to beneficiaries of worker’s compensation, the defendants failed to consider medical reports favorable to our client and used the IME’s report and other procedural methods to prevent reopening the case and providing proper benefits.
The initial surgery was scheduled for January of 2013, but the defendants refused authorization or payment until the Industrial Commission of Arizona ordered Safety National to provide those benefits. Even after this order, the defendants further suspended treatment by requesting reconsideration of the award. Fifteen months after the initial request, our client finally received authorization for
Doyle Raizner Files Worker’s Comp Bad Faith Suit against New Hampshire Insurance and Aiding Entities
Doyle Raizner LLP filed a worker’s compensation lawsuit against New Hampshire Insurance Company (“New Hampshire”), Helmsman Management Services (“Helmsman”) which is a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, and the assigned claims adjuster, together (“defendants”), after their wrongful acts in handling plaintiff’s injury claim.
In March of 2012, our client, a devoted and diligent employee of Associated Retina Consultants, fell and injured her knee in the parking lot of her employer’s place of business. A short time after being assigned light duty, she was discharged due to an unavailability of further light duty tasks.
Upon receiving our client’s workers compensation claim, New Hampshire placed an adjuster on the case that deliberately engaged in improper claim processing actions. Our client’s physician recommended knee surgery, but authorization was denied, causing her to ultimately pay for the procedure through her personal insurance more than a year later.
Rather than properly investigate and ensure our client would receive the medical, financial, and other benefits promised to employees of Associated Retina Consultants, this adjuster ignored favorable information to our client, created pre-textual excuses for underpayment, and failed to timely recognize the extent of injury.
The insurance company also assigned Helmsman, a claims management service, which is liable for aiding and abetting New Hampshire in its violations of the Arizona Worker’ Compensation Act and the duties of good faith and fair dealing.
Our client was forced to hire a lawyer to help her secure benefits. After a hearing, The Industrial Commission of Arizona ordered New Hampshire to pay an award covering costs of surgery, medical maintenance, and deductibles, but the insurance agency still has not paid this portion of relief.
Due to a loss of employment, permanent disfigurement, and delayed payments of medical necessities, our client endures needless and preventable sufferings, even facing eviction from her home. The worker’s compensation bad faith lawyers of Doyle Raizner LLP will vigorously fight to protect the rights of this client. Our
Lawsuit Filed Against Commerce and Industry Insurance and AIG Claims for Worker’s Compensation Bad Faith Actions
Doyle Raizner LLP files worker’s comp bad faith lawsuit against Commerce And Industry Insurance Company (“Commerce and Industry”), AIG Claims Inc., (“AIG”), and the assigned claims adjuster for depriving the plaintiff benefits owed after his on-the-job injury.
Our client was a committed commercial truck driver for Western Dairy Transportation. On September 28, 2012, after pulling his trailer across a trucking scale and starting to exit, he felt a profound punching pain in what felt like his kidney. Our client was later diagnosed with severe spinal damage in the form of a left-sided herniated.
Upon receiving our client’s worker’s comp claim, Commerce and Industry and AIG placed an adjuster in charge of processing the claim. Despite physicians noting the dire need of surgery, the defendants’ denied that the injury was work related, though clear documentation provided otherwise, including that of our client’s supervisor. The adjuster then filed a denial – called a Notice of Claim Status form – with the Industrial Commission of Arizona, Claims Division. This improper denial resulted in all medical and income benefits coming to a halt.
In all, the defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation to ensure our client would receive the medical, financial, and other benefits entitled as a beneficiary of workers’ comp. The law requires that worker’s compensation insurers consider information favorable to the insured, and this includes accepting undisputed evidence regarding the claim. The defendant’s instead chose to create pretextual reasons to delay and deny payments to our client, engaging in “outcome-driven” approaches to cut costs.
After a lengthy and completely unnecessary administrative dispute of the improper denial, in March of 2014, the Worker’s Compensation Commission ruled in our client’s favor, ordering payment of all medical, surgical, and hospital benefits beginning from the date of injury. Though our client finally started to receive payments, even these were delayed, causing yet more stress and