What Your Insurance Agent Needs to Know When a Living Trust Owns a Texas Series LLC

What Your Insurance Agent Really Needs to Know When a Living Trust Owns a Texas Series LLC

When a Living Trust Owns a Texas Series LLC:

What Your Insurance Agent Really Needs to Know

 

When you combine a living trust, a Texas series LLC, and multiple lines of business insurance, you create a structure that is great for asset protection but confusing for insurance underwriting. This post walks through the key issues that come up when an insurance agent calls to “understand the disregarded entity tax structure” and how you, as counsel or advisor, can be ready with clear, consistent answers.

  1. Who Really Owns and Controls the Business?

The first thing a business‑insurance agent wants to nail down is: who is the insured risk?

In a typical planning structure:

  • The revocable living trust is the sole member of the parent LLC.
  • That parent LLC establishes multiple series, each holding a specific asset pool or business line (for example, separate rental properties or operating ventures).
  • The trustee—often the grantor—is the manager of the LLC and its series.

From an insurance standpoint, the key is to make sure:

  • The parent LLC and the relevant series appear as named insureds or scheduled entities on the policy.
  • The trust and the individual trustee/grantor appear as additional insureds (or co‑named insureds where possible).

This alignment reduces the risk that a claim is denied because the “real party” with liability or ownership was never properly named on the policy.

  1. Disregarded Entities: Tax Fiction vs. Insurance Reality

For federal tax purposes, single‑member LLCs (including those owned by a grantor trust) are routinely treated as disregarded entities. In practice, that means:

  • Each series’ income flows through the trust and onto the grantor’s Form 1040.
  • The IRS looks through the LLC and trust and taxes the grantor directly.

Insurance carriers, however, do not underwrite tax fictions. They care about:

  • Which legal entity holds title to the property or employs people.
  • Where operations occur and who signs contracts and leases.
  • Whose financial statements (often the grantor’s return plus entity‑level books) reflect the risk they are insuring.

The smart move is to explain to the agent that the tax treatment doesn’t change who owns assets or runs the business; it simply affects how income is reported. Then offer:

  • EINs for each series and the parent LLC.
  • A short explanation of how the grantor trust and disregarded entities report on the individual return.

This lets underwriting connect the dots between entity‑level exposures and the individual’s tax return they’ll often see in underwriting.

  1. How Texas Series LLCs Affect Coverage Design

Texas series LLCs are popular for real estate and multi‑asset businesses because each series can hold its own assets and liabilities while sitting under a single umbrella LLC. For insurance, this raises several design questions:

  • Should each series be treated as a separate “location” under one master policy, or as separate insured entities?
  • Should there be one combined program (with clear scheduling of each series) or separate policies for each series?
  • How should limits and umbrellas be structured to respect internal liability segregation while still providing practical coverage?

A common, practical approach:

  • Use one coordinated program, with the parent LLC and each active series listed by name.
  • Clearly schedule properties and operations under the correct series on the declarations and schedules.
  • If certain series have meaningfully different risk profiles (e.g., high‑risk operations vs. passive real estate), consider separate policies or endorsements to avoid cross‑subsidization of risk.

The better you document which series owns what, the easier it is for the agent to avoid gaps.

  1. Trust Ownership: Why It Matters to the Carrier

Trust ownership introduces two issues carriers care about: control and continuity.

With a revocable living trust:

  • The grantor and the trust are economically the same person during the grantor’s life.
  • However, the trust instrument governs what happens on incapacity or death—when a successor trustee steps in, and how business interests transition.

Insurance implications include:

  • Ensuring the trust itself is recognized on the policy, so coverage continues seamlessly even if the grantor dies or becomes incapacitated.
  • Ensuring the trustee (and any successor trustee) is recognized as having authority to act for the insured entities.
  • Clarifying that any change in trusteeship or substantial amendment to the trust will trigger notice to the agent so the carrier can update the policy if needed.

When you proactively share a high‑level summary of the trust’s role—without revealing unnecessary private details—you reduce carrier anxiety about “mystery owners” behind the scenes.

  1. Business Income, Payroll, and “Who Is the Employer?”

When agents ask about “the disregarded entity tax structure,” they are often really asking about:

  • Whose income is at risk for business‑income and extra‑expense coverage.
  • Who is the employer for workers’ comp, employment‑practices, and related coverages.

In a common arrangement:

  • The payroll for each line of business runs through the specific series’ EIN, even though the series is disregarded for income‑tax purposes.
  • The books and records track revenue, expenses, and payroll by series, then roll up through the parent LLC and ultimately to the grantor’s return.

For underwriting clarity, it helps to be ready with:

  • Current payroll reports by entity/series.
  • A brief explanation of where business‑income coverage should respond (e.g., at the series level, based on its own revenue).
  • Confirmation that the tax “flow‑through” does not change which entity is responsible for payroll taxes and employment obligations.

This makes it easier to size limits and price the policy correctly.

  1. Documentation and Communication Best Practices

To make these calls productive and avoid follow‑up confusion, it’s worth investing in a simple documentation package:

  • A one‑page structure diagram showing the trust, the parent LLC, and each series with a short label (e.g., “Series A – Elm St. Rental,” “Series B – Equipment Leasing”).
  • A brief written summary (1–2 paragraphs) explaining:
    • That the trust is a revocable grantor trust.
    • That each series is a single‑member LLC owned by the trust and treated as a disregarded entity.
    • That all income flows to the grantor’s Form 1040, but assets and operations are legally held at the entity/series level.
  • A list of requested policy positions, such as:
    • Parent LLC and each series as named insureds or scheduled entities.
    • Trust and trustee as additional insureds.
    • Agreement to notify the agent on changes to trustees, series, or major operations.

Having this ready before the call lets you answer the agent’s questions consistently and gives the underwriter something concrete to work from.

  1. How to Talk About “Disregarded” Without Losing the Agent

Finally, remember that “disregarded entity” is tax jargon. In conversations with agents:

  • Emphasize that for legal liability, each LLC series still exists and owns assets or runs operations.
  • Clarify that for tax reporting, those entities are ignored and everything flows to the individual grantor’s return.
  • Tie every explanation back to what the carrier cares about: who owns the property, who operates the business, who employs people, and whose financials demonstrate the risk.

If you keep the focus on legal ownership, operations, and claims exposure, the tax‑classification piece becomes a simple background detail rather than a point of confusion.

Michael A. Weaver

 

Prepare Your Documentation Package Today

Don’t wait for the call from the underwriter. Proactively assemble the documentation package described in Section 6—including your structure diagram, high-level trust summary, and desired policy positions—to ensure a smooth, confusion-free underwriting process and avoid gaps in coverage. Need help? Contact Mr. Mike Weaver, Partner at Saunders | Walsh, today.  

Texas Supreme Court Provides New Procedure for Pursuing UIM Claims Under Auto Policies

Texas Supreme Court ruling on UIM by SWB

 

Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision that will substantially impact how underinsured motorist (UIM) claims will now be litigated in Texas.  In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Irwin, Case No. 19-0885, a sharply divided court (5-4) held that an insurance carrier’s liability for UIM benefits may now be established in a declaratory judgment action.  The Court’s ruling signals a departure from the traditional manner in which these claims have typically been litigated, and will likely have a drastic impact on how they are litigated in the future.

In Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006), the Court held that an insurance carrier has no legal obligation to pay UIM benefits until the insured obtains a judgment establishing the liability and underinsured status of the other motorist.  These are conditions precedent to recovery of contractual UIM benefits.  Until those determinations are made, the Court explained, “no contractual duty to pay” arises and “no just amount [is] owed.”  Id.  at 818.  Simply put, there can be no breach of the policy until these conditions have been satisfied.

In Allstate v. Irwin, the Court gave plaintiff attorneys a new procedural remedy for having UIM   claims decided.  Noting that UIM claims are contractual in nature, the Court held that the Declaratory Judgment Act can be used to determine the prerequisites for, and existence of, a valid UIM claim.  The Court reasoned that the issues to be decided were about coverage, rather than breach of the policy contract, and thus were proper subjects for declaratory relief.

The Court’s decision in Allstate v. Irwin signals a sea change in how UIM claims will likely now be litigated in Texas.  One major impact that the Court’s decision will have is on the recovery of attorneys’ fees.  In a typical breach of contract action, recovery of attorneys’ fees is not authorized unless there has been a breach of the contract.  Therefore, in a UIM context, those fees ordinarily would not be recoverable until there has been a refusal by the carrier to pay UIM benefits after liability and damages have been established.  Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, however, fees are discretionary with the court, but are typically awarded to the prevailing party.  Consequently, counsel representing claimants in these cases will likely be able to recover their fees before there has even been a breach or refusal by the carrier to pay policy benefits.  The potential ability to recover fees before there has been a breach will no doubt be the driving force behind the initiation of new UIM suits under the Declaratory Judgment Act.


Alex Beard has 30 years of experience representing individuals and businesses, with a practice focusing on liability insurance coverage, property damage insurance, and civil appeals. He has extensive experience with liability insurance claims, and enjoys analyzing coverage issues under numerous types of insurance, including commercial general liability, commercial auto and life. Read more about Alex and his insurance-related practice here: https://saunderswalsh.com/insurance-related-disputes/.

McKinney Tea Shop Takes COVID Insurance Battle to Fifth Circuit

 

Alex Beard argues case in Fifth Circuit

One of the hottest insurance issues stemming from the COVID pandemic is whether business interruption losses resulting from governmental shut-down orders are covered under standard commercial property insurance policies. Under most policies, the issue boils down to whether the shutdown of the business constitutes “direct physical loss of or damage to the property” so as to be covered. Courts across the country continue to grapple with this issue, primarily because the typical policy does not include definitions for the words “direct,” “physical,” and “loss,” leaving the meaning of those words (and thus the scope of coverage) unclear.

One of my clients, Aggie Investments, LLC, operates a small spice and tea shop located in downtown McKinney. The shop, Spice and Tea Merchants of McKinney, was forced to close its doors for a brief period last year in response to the Mayor of McKinney’s “shelter in place” order. The tea shop submitted a claim for its losses to its property insurer, and the insurance company promptly denied the claim, contending there was no “physical loss of or damage to” the property.

As a result of the denial of coverage, my client was forced to file a lawsuit against the insurer in Aggie Investments, LLC v. Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 4:21-cv-0013, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The insurer then filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that no coverage was afforded by the tea shop’s policy. In ruling on the motion, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant followed what he believed to be mandatory authority from the Fifth Circuit. In this connection, he stated that “the Policy’s provisions require demonstrable harm to property to trigger coverage.” Applying this standard, he concluded that the tea shop did not sustain “direct physical loss” of the property, and dismissed the tea shop’s case.

We believe that Justice Mazzant’s decision is in error, and is contrary to well-recognized Texas principles of contract interpretation. We also believe that the Fifth Circuit “authority” he and other Texas federal judges have relied upon in dismissing similar COVID coverage cases is flawed and does not accurately reflect Texas law. Therefore, earlier this week my client filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This will likely be the first case in which the Fifth Circuit squarely addresses this issue, so stay tuned for updates.


Alex Beard has 30 years of experience representing individuals and businesses, with a practice focusing on liability insurance coverage, property damage insurance, and civil appeals. He has extensive experience with liability insurance claims, and enjoys analyzing coverage issues under numerous types of insurance, including commercial general liability, commercial auto and life. Read more about Alex and his insurance-related practice here: https://saunderswalsh.com/insurance-related-disputes/.

Commercial Insurance Attorneys

The Insurance Council of Texas categorized the recent winter storm as the “largest insurance claim event in history.” At Saunders, Walsh & Beard, our insurance attorneys help businesses whose insurers have failed to perform their duties under their related policies. Therefore, if you do not receive the coverage you expect, you have options. Our insurance attorneys assist clients (large and small) to get the insurance coverage they paid for when they purchased their policy. If your company has a property damage claim your insurance company refuses to pay (or is making a “lowball” offer on) and you disagree with their decision/evaluation, then we can help. Our firm’s insurance coverage lawyers enjoy helping our clients in getting their property damage claims paid. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your case or situation. Call us today and schedule a time when we can discuss your insurance-related issue or dispute.

Insurance Coverage Claim Help at Saunders, Walsh & Beard

Mr. Alexander N. Beard & Mr. Mark D. Johnson focus their practice primarily on insurance coverage issues and related litigation. Their successful track record in these endeavors brings a great deal of recognition from fellow attorneys, including an AV Preeminent* peer review rating through Martindale-Hubbell and a “Superb” peer review rating through Avvo. You can learn more about their practice here.

Saunders, Walsh & Beard Coronavirus Insurance Recovery Team

Saunders, Walsh & Beard Coronavirus Insurance Recovery Team

Most business-interruption coverage includes losses from physical damage caused by hurricanes, fires, winds or theft—not a virus. Lawmakers have recently urged insurers to provide business interruption coverage under existing commercial property policies for companies’ losses due to closures tied to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). These initial legislative efforts mark a good first step in trying to address companies’ business interruption coverage needs as the coronavirus crisis unfolds, but these matters are complex and will dictate the ultimate survival of countless businesses.

At Saunders Walsh & Beard, we help our clients (large and small) get the insurance coverage they paid for when they purchased their insurance policy. Two of our partners–Alex Beard and Mark Johnson–each have decades of experience dealing with insurance companies and analyzing insurance policies.

If your business has insurance coverage, but has been denied coverage for economic losses caused by government shutdowns over coronavirus, we welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case or situation. We provide a free, initial review of your company’s insurance policy to assess the coverage that is afforded. If your company’s insurance claim has already been denied, we will analyze the insurance company’s position, determine whether it is correct, and advise you of your company’s rights.

Call us today and schedule a time when we can discuss your particular insurance-related issue or dispute.