In a recent decision, 1 a federal judge noted the following in a Texas hail damage claim dispute:
People in North Texas have at least a few common experiences between them: being disappointed in the Dallas Cowboys, losing Luka Dončić to the Lakers, and being in a hailstorm. This case arises from another experience many in North Texas have had: a denial of insurance coverage after a storm.
I suggest that one reason for this common experience is that Texas has a unique rule that only it follows on how to treat exclusions.
The judge ruled in favor of Nationwide General Insurance Company in a hail damage dispute with Managed Owners Group LLC. The ruling, which granted summary judgment to the insurance company, highlights the key Texas legal standards and evidentiary burden that policyholders and their representatives must meet when pursuing insurance claims involving concurrent causes of loss, such as hail and wear-and-tear.
Managed Owners alleged that a September 2023 storm damaged the building and that Nationwide had failed to properly inspect the site and pay out the claim. The insurance company initially denied the claim. A reinspection was conducted after the policyholder submitted a formal notice and demand in accordance with the Texas Insurance Code. The second inspection reversed the denial, but the insurer’s estimate still fell below the policy’s deductible, effectively resulting in no payout.
The court’s analysis focused on a fundamental Texas principle that when both covered and non-covered events potentially cause damages, the policyholder bears the burden of segregating the damages. Texas courts treat this as the doctrine of concurrent causation. This Texas view requires the insured to present competent evidence demonstrating what portion of the loss is attributable to a covered cause. In this case, the court found that Managed Owners failed to do so. While the policyholder claimed the loss resulted from the September 2023 hailstorm, their evidence failed to distinguish how much of the damage was caused by prior weather events or deterioration unrelated to the claim.
All other jurisdictions place this burden on the insurance company. Even insurance companies instruct adjusters in their training manuals that insurers bear the burden of proving exclusions under an all-risk policy. Texas courts have been persuaded otherwise.
Compounding the problem was the inadequacy of the policyholder’s expert testimony. The court struck key parts of Phil Mayfield’s testimony, an expert retained by Managed Owners. Mayfield attributed the damage solely to the September storm but did not provide a reliable scientific basis for excluding other storms or aging as potential causes. He admitted to relying heavily on the owner’s statement and his own intuition. The court noted that this approach lacked the methodological rigor required under the Daubert standard for expert testimony. In essence, Mayfield’s conclusions were not supported by independent analysis or data sufficient to eliminate alternative explanations.
Simply asserting that damage was caused by a storm is not enough. When there is any possibility of prior damage, other weather events, or long-term deterioration, claimants must bring forward clear, credible evidence that separates what is covered from what is not. That often requires a detailed inspection, use of reliable weather data, and expert analysis grounded in facts rather than assumptions.
The case also highlights the importance of choosing qualified and methodologically sound experts. Courts scrutinize expert opinions carefully, and relying on unsupported opinions or anecdotal statements can backfire.
Thought For The Day
“There wouldn’t be no Alamo, no Cowboys, and no Texas Rangers if it wasn’t for Texas.”
—Willie Nelson
1 Managed Owners Group v. Nationwide Gen Ins. Co., No. 3:24-cv-1336 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2025).