North Richland Hills Lawyers who handle life insurance claims can read this case and then tell potential clients they better hire an attorney. This case is from the United States District Court, Northern District, Fort Worth Division. The style is Doretha Hall v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.
Fidelity issued a term life insurance policy to Mr. Hall in the face amount of $75,000.00. In his application, Mr. Hall designated Doretha as the beneficiary of the policy, and no changes to that designation were ever made. Mr. Hall also requested the premium payments be drafted from his checking account. However, the payment due November 1, 2010, in the amount of $73.65, was rejected because Mr. Hall’s checking account was closed. On November 8, 2010, Fidelity sent a notice of the rejected payment to Mr. Hall’s home address. On December 3, 2010, Fidelity sent Mr. Hall a late payment notice informing him that his premium payment was past due and that the policy would lapse if the premium was not paid by the end of the grace period. When Fidelity still had not received any payment, it sent a second late payment notice on January 3, 2011, informing Mr. Hall again that his payment was past due and that his policy would lapse if the premium was not paid by the end of the grace period. On February 2, 2011, Fidelity mailed Mr. Hall a lapse notice indicating that Mr. Hall’s policy had lapsed and terminated on December 2, 2010, because Mr. Hall had failed to pay his premiums. The lapse notice expressly stated that to apply for reinstatement, Mr. Hall must complete the enclosed application for reinstatement and submit it with the past due premium amounts. On February 10, 2011, Fidelity received a check in regards to Mr. Hall’s policy in the amount of $73.65. Fidelity held the check in suspense and then refunded it to Mr. Hall on March 18, 2011, because Fidelity did not receive a reinstatement application or the remaining past-due premiums.
Doretha notified Fidelity of Mr. Hall’s death on April 17, 2011. However, Fidelity denied the claim for benefits under Mr. Hall’s policy because the policy had lapsed and terminated for nonpayment of premiums prior to Mr. Hall’s death.
Fidelity argued for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Hall’s life insurance policy lapsed and terminated for nonpayment of premiums prior to Mr. Hall’s death. Therefore, Fidelity contended, Doretha’s breach of contract, bad faith, DTPA, and Texas Insurance Code claims all fail as a matter of law. Fidelity also argued that Doretha’s bad faith, DTPA, and Texas Insurance Code claims fail because there is no evidence of any conduct by Fidelity that would support such claims and no evidence that Doretha suffered any damages because of such conduct.
This court ruled Mr. Hall’s policy lapsed and terminated for nonpayment of premiums prior to his death, in accordance with the terms of the policy.
Accordingly, because Doretha failed to show that Fidelity breached any contractual obligation under the terms of the insurance policy, Doretha has also failed to show, as a matter of law, that Fidelity acted in bad faith or violated the DTPA or the Texas Insurance Code.
Updated: