Auto Insurance

Lawsuits Involving Underinsured/Uninsured Coverage And The Responsible Third Party

May 30, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

A policyholder in Weatherford, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Colleyville, Newark, or any other city in Texas could find themselves in a position where they are having to sue their underinsured/uninsured (UIM) insurance company. And at the same time, they might be having to sue the person with whom they had the accident with.

When the other driver, who caused an accident, has to be sued and that person does not have insurance or does not have enough insurance to cover the damages you have sustained, most experienced Insurance Law Attorneys will tell you to sue both the driver and your own insurance company at the same time rather than having to incur the time and expense of two separate lawsuits. When this becomes necessary there are usually several options about where the lawsuit can be filed. Choosing the best county to file a lawsuit can often times make a big difference as to the value of the case.

The Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Section 15.002, cites the general rules governing where a lawsuit can be filed. Sometimes the options are limited, but other times there are many options and when a lawsuit is filed the attorney filing the lawsuit will want to file in a county where the best results are possible. In contrast, the person being sued will make efforts to get the lawsuit transferred or moved to a county they believe is more favorable to themselves, or as it relates to insurance, a county more favorable to the position the insurance company will be taking.

Named Driver Exclusions In Automobile Policies In Texas

May 24, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Auto policy holders in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Azle, Dallas, Weatherford, or any other city in Texas would want to know what all that “stuff” in their auto policy means. One part that is pretty easy to explain is the “Named Driver Exclusion.” This is other times called the “515-A Exclusion” or “515-A Endorsement”.

The normal automobile insurance policy is going to have a part that reads, “You agree that none of the insurance coverage afforded by this policy shall apply while ______________ is operating your covered auto or any other motor vehicle. These exclusions and endorsements are legal in insurance contracts. The language used is partly governed by laws published in the Texas Insurance Code. See Sections 1952.051 et al and Sections 2301.001 et al. As for the “Named Driver Exclusion”, it is legal and is intended to give policy holders the option to exclude from coverage drivers who, by virtue of their driving history or other factors, are deemed high risk drivers. This category of drivers would include drivers who have been convicted of violating the Driving While Intoxicated laws found in the Texas Penal Code, drivers with too many moving violations, too many wrecks, and other high risk drivers such as teenagers who have just got their license. It is important to realize that almost all of these drivers can get insurance but the cost of the insurance is much higher than what other drivers must pay.

The Texas Corpus Christ Court of Appeals decided a case in 1996 that is often cited for the validity of the Named Driver Exclusion. The style of the case is, Janie Zamora, Pete Zamora, Jesus Toc, and Gracie Vela v. Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company. In this case the excluded driver was Gracie Vela, who was driving Jesus Toc’s vehicle. She had a wreck with the Zamoras causing them injury. In this case, the court upheld the validity of the exclusion and discussed the reasons for its validity.

Auto Coverage In Texas And Gun Racks

May 5, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

What if you are a “good ole boy” in Weatherford, Texas? Or for that matter, in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, or Dallas, and you have a gun rack in your vehicle. In the gun rack you have a loaded firearm. Next, the firearm is accidently discharged. Will your insurance company cover the resulting damages to others? The answer is a lawyerly answer for you: It depends.

Here is an interesting case issued by the Texas Supreme Court. This case discusses how the facts should be analysed to see if coverge will exist. The case, decided in 1999, is styled, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, a division of The Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, v. Richard Tanner. The cite is, 997 S.W.2d 153.

The question for the court to decide in this case was whether the underinsured motorist provision of a standard Texas personal auto policy covers the insured’s bodily injuries resulting from the unintentional discharge of a shotgun on a gun rack in a pickup truck parked nearby. The answer, in this case, depended on whether, within the meaning of the policy, the injuries resulted from “an accident” “arising out of” the “use” of the truck.

Texas Underinsured Motorist Case

March 18, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie policy holders, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or anybody else in Texas who has a policy with underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) should be aware of a recent case decided in Texas.

The case is Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas v. Synthia McClain. This case was an appeal from the 42nd District Court in Taylor County, Texas. The appeal was heard by the Eleventh Court of Appeals and an opinion was issued on March 11, 2010.

The facts are pretty simple. Synthia was injured in a wreck caused by Becky Morey. Becky had insurance which paid to Synthia the policy limits of $20,100. Synthia, then made a claim against her own insurance company, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas (Mid-Century), for UIM benefits. Synthia’s policy with Mid-Century provided UIM benefits of $20,000. Mid-Century had already paid the personal injury payments limits of $2,500 and Mid-Century made an offer of $1,500 additional money. Synthia then filed this lawsuit to recover the full measure of her damages.

Underinsured And Liability On Same Policy – How Does It Work

March 15, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Whether you live in Weatherford, Texas, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Dallas, or Fort Worth, the answer to the above would be the same. Texas insurance law is going to apply to all residents of Texas, no matter where in the state they live.

Of course there is no one answer to the above title. The answer depends on the policy and the fact situation. A case decided in 1992, gives some insight into a scenario that is fairly common across the state.

The case, Margot Bergensen v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest and Harry Bergensen, was decided by the 1st Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. Here are the relevant facts.

Limitations Periods In Texas For Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist Coverage

March 12, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield residents and residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Weatherford who have uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on their automobile insurance policy should fill good about a case decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1974. The case is styled, Raul C. Franco et ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company.

The facts of this case are fairly short and simple. Raul C. Franco and his family (Franco) had uninsured motorist benefits in an insurance policy they carried with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). An accident occurred wherein Franco suffered injuries and his daughter was killed. The accident was caused by the negligence of an uninsured driver. Franco made a claim for benefits from Allstate and eventually three years later sued Allstate.

Allstate denied the claim and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Allstate asserted that a claim for the wrongful death of his daughter and the claim for his injuries, were both governed by a two year statute of limitations. Allstate claimed that because the two years had passed, it was too late for Franco to be seeking recovery.

Texas Case With Lots Of Insurance Law

March 11, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie residents beware; Weatherford residents beware; Arlington, Mansfield, Dallas, Fort Worth residents beware. Here is a case that makes you angry at the insurance company when you get into the details of how this person was treated by her insurance company and those associated with them.

The case is kinda old, decided in 2001. The style of the case is long, Lois Jones v. Ray Insurance Agency a/k/a Azteca Insurance and / or Alamo Insurance, and Collision Clinic, Inc., State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Harbor Insurance Managers. It was decided by the Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

The facts of the case are long, but not really complicated. Lois Jones purchased a new 1998 Pontiac and purchased a State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Company insurance policy (State & County). This policy was purchased from the agent, Ray Insurance Agency a/k/a Azteca Insurance and / or Alamo Insurance (Ray). The policy administrator was Harbor Insurance Managers (Harbor). When purchasing the policy, Jones informed the agent that her sister lived with her, and was advised by the agent, that would not be a problem, and that as long as she paid her premiums on time she would have insurance. The policy with State & County excludes coverage for anyone residing with Jones age fourteen or over unless listed. Ms. Jones paid the November and December premium payments. The policy was to be effective from November 7, 1997 (the date of purchase) thru May 7, 1998.

Permission? To Operate The Vehicle

February 25, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Dallas Appeals Court upheld a lower Court ruling in an interesting case. The ruling applies to the same facts anywhere in Texas, including, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or Weatherford.

This case is valid law today but was decided in 1989. The fact pattern is unique. The style of the case is United States Fire Insurance Company v. United Service Automobile Association.

The underlying liability lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred when an Anna Milliken was riding as a passenger, with a Douglas Martin, being the driver. The car Douglas was driving was owned by his father and was covered by the United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire) policy. Anna’s insurance was United Service Automobile Association. Douglas testified about some swerving and horseplay prior to the accident. Anna testified that Douglas was zigzagging the wheel back and forth and that she grabbed the wheel on two occasions prior to the accident. She was doing this to play back with Douglas. The first time she did this, Douglas did not object, and the second time was when the accident occurred causing serious injury to Douglas. Douglas sued Anna for his injuries.

Uninsured Coverage and Punative Damages In Texas

February 20, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Punative damages and “exemplary” damages are essentially the same thing in Texas. The way exemplary damages works in Texas is the same regardless of whether you live in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford.

The Texas Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas, recently dealt with the issue of how exemplary damages are handled when the claim made is a claim against a person’s own insurance carrier for uninsured motorist benefits. This case was decided on February 4, 2010. The style of the case is, Sandra Gervais Laine, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.

In this case Laine’s mother was killed in an auto accident. The other driver was at fault and was intoxicated. Laine made a claim against Farmers Insurance Exchange for benefits under her uninsured motorist benefits portion of the auto policy. Farmers paid the uninsured benefits limit of $250,000. She then made a claim against her umbrella policy which provided the same benefits as the auto policy except for a higher amount. The limit under the umbrella policy was $1,000,000.

Diminished Value Claims In Texas

February 10, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Diminished value claims have to be looked at from two different standing points. In Texas, whether you are in Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or out in Weatherford, the same rules to go by are going to apply.

Diminished value would be the difference in the value of your car after a wreck, even though it has been repaired, and the value your car would have had, if the wreck had not occurred. A good example of this is as follows: You bought a new car 3 months ago for $30,000. Let’s say the car is now worth $28,000. Your have a wreck. The car is repaired. Now, because the car has been in a wreck, the car is only worth $23,500. The reason it is worth less is because anyone buying the car will not pay as much for it, knowing it has been wrecked, than they would pay if it had not been wrecked. In our example, the car should be worth $28,000. This $4,500 difference is the “diminished value”.

The first standing point, when making a diminished value claim, is when you are going to make a claim against another driver / insurance company. In making the claim against someone else who caused the damage to your car, they are responsible for the diminished value of your vehicle that was harmed in an accident. There are companies whose business purpose is to help people with these claims.