Melissa W. Wray of Daly & Black, arguing for the homeowner, said the intent of the law is to promote prompt payment of insurance claims by imposing liability for statutory interest, attorney fees and prejudgment interest on insurers who do not pay claims in accordance with the act's deadline. Credit: rawf8/Shutterstock.com Melissa W. Wray of Daly & Black, arguing for the homeowner, said the intent of the law is to promote prompt payment of insurance claims by imposing liability for statutory interest, attorney fees and prejudgment interest on insurers who do not pay claims in accordance with the act's deadline. Credit: rawf8/Shutterstock.com

The Texas Supreme Court justices responding to a federal appellate certified question appeared perplexed about the lack of guidance on how or if attorneys could get paid on property damage insurance claims.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Adolfo Pesquera

Adolfo Pesquera, based in San Antonio, covering Texas courts. Contact at [email protected]. On Twitter: @Adolfo_PEZ

Litigation
Personal Lines
Property & Casualty