Hurricane Beryl hit an eight-building Texas apartment complex. Its owner says the insurer paid for one building and denied most of the claim.
GKS Enterprises, which operates as Garden Villa Apartments, sued Topa Insurance Company on July 27, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges the surplus lines carrier underpaid a Hurricane Beryl claim by more than $2.4 million, and that its claims administrator twice declined the insured's demand for appraisal.
According to the filing, Topa insured the eight-building complex under a $12 million commercial property policy running from March 19, 2024 to March 19, 2025. The complaint says Beryl struck on July 8, 2024, causing roof damage, siding and elevation damage, and interior water intrusion across multiple buildings.
The insured reported the loss on August 16, 2024, the complaint states. Topa's third-party claims administrator, Swyfft, sent DBI Building Consultants to inspect. According to the filing, the estimate that followed covered only one of the eight buildings - Building 7 - at a replacement cost of $185,412.82.
In February 2025, the complaint says, Swyfft paid $167,771.48, covering Building 7's actual cash value plus mitigation costs, and partially denied interior water damage claims for four other buildings. The filing quotes the stated reason: the damage "is a result of a wear and tear to the existing roof and no wind created opening exist."
The complaint alleges Swyfft never inspected the other buildings. It points to a July 31, 2025 letter in which, it says, the administrator acknowledged that "the damages investigation was previously limited to one building—building seven."
The insured responded with its own figures. A sworn proof of loss filed July 24, 2025 put covered damages at $2,597,658.46 in replacement cost value, according to the complaint.
The filing says the insured then demanded appraisal - a contractual process for settling disputes over the size of a loss - on April 30 and again on July 31, 2025, and that Swyfft declined both times. It quotes the second refusal: "seven of the eight buildings had not experienced storm-created openings required to establish a potentially covered loss."
Swyfft reinspected the property in March 2026 through an engineer and a building consultant, the complaint states. It says the engineer deferred on Building 7 and found no wind-related damage elsewhere apart from a single shingle, blaming the damage instead on moisture intrusion, ponding water, construction deficiencies, deferred maintenance and differential settlement. The consultant put related damage at $804.36 - below the deductible, according to the filing.
Topa has paid $167,771.48 to date, leaving a remaining balance of $2,429,886.98 in replacement cost value, before applicable deductibles, the complaint states.
The suit brings four counts: breach of contract, violations of the Texas Unfair Settlement Practices Act, non-compliance with the state's Prompt Payment of Claims Act, and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges the conduct was done "knowingly" and "intentionally" and seeks three times the insured's actual damages, plus 18% interest under the prompt-payment statute.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled.
