Bad Faith Trials

At Brock Person Guerra Reyna, we have tried hundreds of cases over the years, too many to include in this website. We have, however, chosen to include each of those cases governed by a jury verdict where the amount sought was in excess of $500,000. It is important to note that we have included every case tried under this broad category, not just select verdicts.


Reyna v. Kemper Lloyds Insurance Company
(Cameron County) Plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful termination and other causes of action. Defendant denied coverage under the General Liability policy issued to Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff and his employer entered into an agreed judgment and assignment of rights. Plaintiff then took the assignment of rights and sued Kemper for failure to defend and failure to settle, claiming bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas DTPA. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $8,400,000. The pre-trial demand was $8,400,000. The pre-trial offer was $0. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Trevino v. Holub Custom Homes (Bexar County) Plaintiffs hired Defendant to build them a custom home. Two months after the Plaintiffs moved in, and the first time they used the gas fireplace in the master bedroom, the house caught fire and completely burned to the ground. Plaintiffs were home at the time and witnessed their home and all its contents destroyed. The property damage was $2,250,000.The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $8,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $1,750,000. The pre-trial offer was $300,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Mendez v. Aaron Rents
(Bexar County) Plaintiff sued after she was harrassed and abused by an employee of the Defendant. Over a 3 month period, the employee admittedly abused her and her children in trying to collect a debt (making up to 15 calls per day, banging on doors late at night, and leaving obscene/profane messages in writing). The employee was hired in violation of company policy shortly after serving time in a federal prison for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana.The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $6,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $2,600,000. The pre-trial offer ws $300,000. The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff totaling $490,000. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant as to the claims of the minor children ($0 awarded for each of the 3 children).

Henderson v. Central Texas Electric Cooperative
(Kerr County) Plaintiff called Defendant because of fluttering electricity and power surges on a light pole outside their home. Defendant responded by fixing an electrical short on the light pole. The following day, Defendant was called to Plaintiff's home a second time because of electrical fluttering and surges inside the home. Defendant responded by changing connectors at the junction box. Several hours after the second service call, Plaintiff's home caught fire and burned to the ground. Plaintiff sued on a product liability theory and a DTPA theory alleging that the 25 year old electrical transformer outside their home was defective. The transformer was replaced immediately after the fire, although Defendant contended that it was not defective. The specials were $1,000,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $1,000,000. The pre-trial offer was $75,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Schnabel v. C&J Heating & Air Conditioning Company (Bexar County) Plaintiff, a 95 year old widow, hired Defendant to inspect and service her heating system. Defendant admittedly told Plaintiff her heating system was in good working order. Shortly after the inspection, the house caught fire and completely burned to the ground. Plaintiff was home at the time and witnessed her home of over fifty years and all its contents destroyed. The Plaintiff hired eight liability and damages experts. The Defendant hired none. The property damage was $500,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $750,000. The pre-trial offer was $150,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Harvey v. Gerloff Company, Inc. (Bexar County) Plaintiff experienced a washing machine overflow in her home. She reported the problems to her insurance company who hired Defendant to perform the repairs. Subsequent to the work of Defendant, Plaintiff experienced two additional water intrusion problems which was attributed to the negligent work of the Defendant. Plaintiff's expert testified that Defendant failed to properly address the water damage caused. The specials were in excess of $500,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $1,000,000. The pre-trial offer was $0. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Gluckman v. Badeco (Bexar County) Plaintiff sued for property damage and bodily injuries after exposure to mold stemming from construction work being performed by the Defendant at Plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff alleged that sewage backed up into Plaintiff's residence as a result of underground drilling. Plaintiff went to the hospital after exposure to the sewage and later underwent treatment for illness after exposure to mold. Plaintiff missed six months from work as a consequence. The specials were $375,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $800,000. The pre-trial demand was $350,000. The pre-trial offer was $100,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.

Yanta v. USAA (Bexar County) Plaintiff was driving his vehicle and was struck by an uninsured driver who ran a red light. Plaintiff sued his insurance company for uninsured motorist benefits and bad faith. Plaintiff underwent surgery for a herniated disc in his neck. The Plaintiff had past medical specials of $23,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $300,000. The pre-trial offer was $20,000. The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff totaling $17,000.

How Can We Help You?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

CONTACT US TODAY