Breaking News
Celebrating One Year of Protecting and Preserving the Practice of Law in Texas
It comes with great pride to congratulate Mr. Husein Hadi and the team members at the Hadi Law firm for creating precedence on November 12, 2020, by obtaining a verdict out of Montgomery County that has never been seen before.
For the first time in this decade, The Hadi Law Firm was victorious in a Stowers trial. This monumental victory has opened new doors for lawyers in all fields of third-party negligence to secure amicable and favorable resolutions for their clients.
The Montgomery County jury in the Stowers Trial agreed with The Hadi Law Firm that GEICO acted in bad faith with deception while trying to delay, deny, deprive, and haphazardly defend their position throughout the entire claims process and both trials.
Geico refused to tender the initial $30,000.00 they owed, then refused to resolve the claim at $40,000.00 when demanded prior to the car crash trial; trial 1. Unfortunately for Geico, they were met with the swift hand of justice when the Hadi Law firm took them to task at the second trial and the Stowers trial jury rendered a verdict 24 times over the insurance policy limit!
The Texas Stowers Doctrine
G.A. Stowers Furniture v. American Indemnity Co. (1929)
- Stowers Furniture Company had obtained auto liability coverage from American Indemnity in the amount of $5,000.
- An accident occurred and the claimants sued G.A. Stowers Furniture for $20,000 since their insurance policy included coverage for injuries caused by car accidents.
- Although coverage should have covered up to $5,000, American Indemnity offered a settlement that was only half as much as the coverage limit.
- A jury awarded the injured party more than twice the amount of the policy, which the furniture company paid and then sued the insurance company for reimbursement.
- The high court of Texas determined that American Indemnity had a responsibility to protect its insured up to the policy limit, and because of its failure to pay a reasonable settlement that was within policy limits, they would also be liable for the full amount of the judgment even though it was higher than the insurance policy.
The Hadi Law Firm et al v. GEICO Mutual Insurance Co. (2020)
- The Defendant had a $30,000.00 auto insurance policy with GEICO Insurance.
- GEICO refused to tender the initial $30,000.00 they owed, then refused to resolve the claim at $40,000.00.
- All pre-trial offers to settle were rejected by seven different GEICO adjusters who tried to delay, deny, deprive, then defend.
- When GEICO refused to accept the settlement offer, the plaintiff was awarded just over $114,566 after a jury verdict; about $135,000.00 with interest and fees.
- GEICO refused to honor the Stowers Doctrine.
- The Hadi Law firm took GEICO to task and the Stowers trial jury rendered a verdict 24 times over the insurance policy limit ($736,000.00 on a $30,000.00 insurance policy) because of their failure to respect a 100+ year old Texas Law.
- The Montgomery County jury in the Stowers Trial agreed with The Hadi Law Firm that GEICO acted in bad faith with deception while trying to delay, deny, deprive, and haphazardly defend their position throughout the entire claims process and trial with a unanimous 12 jury verdict.
A New Standard Established
The Hadi Law Firm was able to prove that you do not need 100% certainty on liability and damages to violate the Stowers Doctrine.
G.A. Stowers Furniture v. American Indemnity Co. (1929)
Although the Stowers doctrine was challenged several times since the 1920s, it has withstood the test of time. It was reaffirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 and the exact requirements of a Stowers doctrine were clarified. The insurance adjuster must exercise “ordinary care” when evaluating a claim involving a Stowers demand. Ordinary care means the degree of care that a prudent person would use. The Stowers doctrine establishes the following criteria:
- Stowers Furniture Company had obtained auto liability coverage from American Indemnity in the amount of $5,000.
- An accident occurred and the claimants sued G.A. Stowers Furniture for $20,000 since their insurance policy included coverage for injuries caused by car accidents.
- Although coverage should have covered up to $5,000, American Indemnity offered a settlement that was only half as much as the coverage limit.
- A jury awarded the injured party more than twice the amount of the policy, which the furniture company paid and then sued the insurance company for reimbursement.
- The high court of Texas determined that American Indemnity had a responsibility to protect its insured up to the policy limit, and because of its failure to pay a reasonable settlement that was within policy limits, they would also be liable for the full amount of the judgment even though it was higher than the insurance policy.
The Hadi Law Firm et al v. GEICO Mutual Insurance Co. (2020)
If the insurance company won’t agree to settle the claim by the deadline, the accident victim may proceed to a jury trial. The insurance company will be aware that they are taking a risk because if the jury decides an appropriate settlement amount is one that exceeds policy limits. Both the insured and the insurance company can be found to be liable to pay this larger amount. Whenever an insurance company attempts to avoid paying a legitimate claim, an experienced Personal Injury Trial Law lawyer will fight for their client all the way through trial and try to get a judgment that is higher than the policy limit.
Excerpt from Mr. Hadi’s Closing Statement
“Stowers came down because the insurance companies say do what you got to do, go to trial. And when we lose, we’ll just pay the policy. In 1929, they said, no, you’re not going to drag people out for years and years and years and then come and say we’re just going to pay the policy. And that’s where Stowers came in, so insurance companies pay what they owe, and if they delay or misevaluate, then they must pay any verdict in excess of the policy limits. We all pay premiums in one way or one fashion. A decision today can change the value of individuals in Texas paying premiums.
From the Closing Arguments: “Mr. Powers said he didn’t want to leave the Gonzalez family out in the cold. But that’s exactly what GEICO did, not only the Gonzalez but also their own insured, Mr. and Mrs. Fuentez. So we are here not only for justice for the Gonzalez family but also for the Fuentez family.”
Although the monetary victory was tremendous, it pales in comparison to how the verdict has forever changed the practice of Personal Injury Trial Law in the state of Texas to benefit lawyers and their plaintiffs. Going forward it is strongly recommended that this case is discussed on any and all demands ever sent to negligent third-party insurance carriers by any plaintiff lawyer in Texas. The Hadi Law Firm is proud to have preserved the Stowers Doctrine and brought awareness to the insurance companies on how their wrongdoings will not be resolved to their benefit.
– Justice Not Defended Is Justice Not Served.
