Houston litigator Greg Cox convinced a South Texas jury that aninsurance company’s treatment of his client was so bad that itamounted to malice, turning what was originally a $76,500 hailstorm claim into a $1.8 million verdictrecently.

Cox, an attorney in Houston’s Mostyn Law, represents John R.Griffith, a McAllen homeowner who sued USAA Texas Lloyd’s Co. in2014 for fraud, breach of contract and violations of the TexasInsurance Code. Griffith alleged the insurance company failed tofully reimburse him for the severe damage his house sustained afterit was pummeled by baseball-sized hail in a 2012 storm.

Griffith alleged the company failed to reasonably investigatehis claim and paid for a portion of his roof repair; however, it failed to reimbursehim for the totality of his loss including damage to the home’sinterior, siding, pool deck and fence. USAA denied the allegationsand alleged that Griffith had failed to prove that the losses hesuffered were covered by his policy with the company.

Jury awarded exemplary damages

After a week-long trial, a Hidalgo County jury returned averdict on Feb. 7 finding that not only had USAA breached itspolicy and committed fraud, but that the damage it inflicted onGriffith was done with malice, prompting them to award him $800,000in exemplary damages on top of $1 million more for other causes ofaction.

The malice finding against the insurance company by the jury iswhat made the verdict notable, Cox said.

“In any case it’s difficult to get a malice finding — it’s notjust that you have to prove that there was a fraud against yourclient, you have to prove it with clear and convincing evidence,”Cox said.

The malice finding was needed to secure exemplary damagesagainst the insurance company, and Cox had originally asked thejury to award $674,000 as punishment — the amount of the policylimit coverage for Griffith’s home.

“But the jury increased that up to $800,000,” Cox said. “That’swhat was even more unusual. They didn’t give us everything we askedfor, they gave us everything we asked for and more.”

USAA disagrees

Thomas Sanders, a partner in the San Antonio office of DykemaGossett who represents USAA, said the company will appeal theverdict. USAA paid Griffith’s hail claim for damage to his roof inaccordance with his insurance policy and denies that it committedfraud or malice, he said.

“There is simply no legal support for plaintiff’s fraud claim,which, in essence, argued that it was fraud to issue a policy withstandard exclusions for such things as wear and tear, to his10-year-old wood shake roof,” Sanders said. “All roofs have wearand tear, and insurance is not meant to cover such damage thatoccurs naturally over time.”

“Finally, there certainly was no evidence of malice in eitherissuing Mr. Griffith’s policy or the handling of his claim tosupport the punitive damages finding,” Sanders said.

Cox said he believes the totality of USAA’s treatment ofGriffith was what prompted the jury’s malice finding.

“Mr. Griffith was a very longtime and loyal customer for 30years of USAA. It was his first claim ever, and they only wanted topay for a partial roof repair,” Cox said. “As it went along, as heinsisted that it be replaced, their position hardened. Theirpositions were difficult for them to explain.”

Related: N.J. federal court in Superstorm Sandy coveragecase rejects insureds’ challenges