New Mexico homeowners Nickolaus and Crista Wiegel are taking legal action against Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company after a hailstorm damaged their home in Clovis. The couple claims Allstate mishandled their insurance claim, rejecting a significant portion of the payout despite an appraisal panel awarding them over $332,000.
The trouble began on May 24, 2023, when a severe hailstorm hit the area. The National Weather Service recorded 2-inch hailstones and strong winds that caused walls to collapse and damaged roofs in Clovis. The next day, the Wiegels saw broken concrete roof tiles scattered on the ground, along with damage to their windows, skylights, garage doors, and siding.
When they reported the damage, an Allstate adjuster initially acknowledged the harm and promised an estimate that included replacing the broken concrete roof tiles. But a few hours later, a claims manager, who had not inspected the property, declared that hail had not caused damage to the roof, windows, or garage doors.
Months later, a second adjuster arrived but declined to climb onto the roof. Allstate paid the Wiegels $6,448, falling far short of their contractor’s estimate of over $262,000. The insurer then brought in a forensic engineer, Gabriel Alexander, who spent about 20 minutes inspecting the property. Despite being shown broken tile pieces and contractor photos, Alexander concluded there was no hail or wind damage to the roof. His report included only a dozen photographs and claimed he found no shattered tiles.
The Wiegels argue that Alexander used the wrong standard to assess the damage. His report referenced lab findings stating that hailstones under 1.5 inches don’t cause functional damage to concrete tiles and that hail damage would appear as shattered tiles. The homeowners contend this conflicts with their policy terms. Their insurance policy includes an exclusion for cosmetic damage to metal roofs but not concrete tiles, which form their roof. They say Allstate wrongly limited coverage by focusing only on shattered tiles and dismissing other damage.
In December 2023, relying on the engineer’s report, Allstate sent a denial letter for roof damage. However, the insurer continued to evaluate other claimed damages. After many months, in March 2024, Mr. Wiegel invoked the policy’s appraisal clause. The appraisal panel eventually valued the damage at over $332,000. Yet in October 2024, Allstate paid only about $88,600 and refused to pay more, citing the engineer’s finding that no functional damage was present.
The Wiegels filed suit in federal court, accusing Allstate of breach of contract, bad faith, and violating New Mexico’s insurance laws. They seek full compensation, including punitive damages and attorney fees. The case is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Allstate responded in a letter to regulators in January 2025, defending its position by citing historical hail data that showed no hailstones above 1.5 inches had been reported in the area from 2020 until the engineer’s inspection. This conflicts with the National Weather Service report of 2-inch hail on May 24, 2023, which the Wiegels rely on to support their claim.
This dispute highlights the challenges homeowners face when storm damage claims collide with insurance company assessments. While appraisal panels can assign value, insurers may still hold back payments based on their own inspections and reports. For the Wiegels, the fight over what constitutes hail damage—and the correct coverage standard—continues in court.