Auto Insurance

What is Personal Injury Protection (PIP) In Texas

February 9, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Anytime a person buys insurance coverage for their automobile in Texas, they are given many options. These options include choices related to collision coverage, coverage for towing, rental cars, and even life insurance, to mention a few. No matter where you buy automobile coverage in Texas, whether it is Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or in Weatherford , you are also given the option to buy uninsured / underinsured beneits and personal injury protection benefits also known as PIP.

In discussing PIP coverage, one should know that this coverage is regulated in the Texas Insurance Code, Sections 1952.151 thru 1952.161.

Section 1952.151 says that PIP provides payment of all reasonable expenses that arise from an accident for: A) necessary medical care, B) lost income for a wage earner, and C) reinbursement for reasonable expenses for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person. An example of this last one would be reinbursing an injured person for having to pay someone to mow his yard because his injuries prevented him from doing it himself.

2 Texas Auto Policies – One Accident

February 8, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a situaton where a Dallas resident had a wreck in Mesquite, but it could have been Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or out in Weatherford. The injured persons had two insurance policies with the same insurance company.

This happened in a 1984 case, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island, v. Lenny and Terri Lucas. Mr. Lucas was accompanied by his wife, Ms. Lucas, in an ambulance. A drunk driver ran head-on into the ambulance causing injuries to the Lucas’. They had two separate insurance policies with Travelers Indemnity, for Personal Injury Protection benefits and underinsured motorists benefits. Travelers paid the full amount under one policy to each of the Lucas’ but refused to pay under the second policy. The damages to the Lucas’ exceeded the limit of both the policies combined.

The ambulance also had underinsured benefits with a policy through Aetna. Travelers tried to limit what it had to pay by citing an “Other Insurance” clause within the Travelers policy.

Underinsured / Uninsured Auto Claims In Texas

February 6, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Praire, Weatherford, or any other town in Texas should be interested in a question posed by an attorney the other day on a web-site, to other attorneys who sub-scribed to the site. It was a question dealing with uninsured and underinsured (UM) automobile coverage.

In the situation, a potential client had come into the attorneys office. The potential new client had been involved in an accident where the other person did not have enough insurance coverage to fully cover the damages this potential new client had suffered. Sounds simple so far. Here was the problem: More than two years had past since the accident had occurred. The question posed was: Can I recover more money from the UM coverage on the injured persons automobile policy.

This was the issue in the case Raul C. Franco et ux., v. Allstate Insurance Company. In the Franco case, Franco sought to recover damages due to the death of their daughter in an automobile accident. The lawsuit had been filed approximately three years after the date of the accident. The applicable statute of limitations for an injury claim was two years.

Recent Texas Case Concerning Uninsured Motorist Coverage

January 24, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a case that was originally filed in a State District Court in Dallas, Texas. The case was removed to Federal Court and promptly dismissed.

The style of the case is “Kenneth McQuinne v. American Home Assurance Company”. The only important issue in the case was whether or not a self insured vehicle was “uninsured” for purposes of the American Home Assurance Company policy argued about in this case.

The facts in this case are that McQuinne was involved in a wreck with a person named Sapkota. Sapkota was driving a vehicle owned by Enterprise Leasing. McQuinne reached a settlement with Sapkota’s insurance company for the policy limit of $50,000. McQuinne alleged that his damages exceeded that amount and consequently filed a claim with American seeking additional benefits under the policy American had issued on his employer, Turfgrass.

Excluded Drivers In Texas Automobile Policies

November 24, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

Let’s say you are a Grand Prairie or Arlington resident. You purchased an auto policy from an agent in Fort Worth. The price quoted seemed way too high and you asked the agent if there was anything that could be done to get the premium lower. The agent says, “Yes, we can take your teenage son off the policy.” You say okay. The agent sells you a policy that excludes coverage if your teenage son is driving the car.

You can guess what happens next – the son drives the car and gets involved in a wreck. Now what? Numerous lawsuits have been filed in these situations and outcomes will sometimes be different depending on the facts of the accident and more importantly, the wording in the insurance policy that excludes the son.

Courts will look closely at the wording in the policy at issue but as a general rule, these exclusions are found by the Courts to be valid. It has been held that public policy dictates the allowance of such exclusions to enable insured motorists with children having bad driving records to secure insurance they can afford, rather than being relegated to securing coverage from an assigned risk pool at a much higher cost. This issue was discussed at length in the case, Wright v. Rodney D. Young Ins. Agcy. Wright was a 1995, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case.

Diminished Value Of Your Automobile In Texas

November 7, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

Pretend for a minute that you are driving your car in the Dallas Fort Worth area going west. You drive through Grand Prairie and Arlington and are on your way to Weatherford to enjoy the “First Monday” market. All of a sudden a dog runs in front of you and you swerve to miss it and hit a telephone pole. You are lucky in that no one is injured, but your car has $3800 worth of property damage. You are lucky again because you have collision coverage on your automobile and they repair your car and you are only out a $500 deductible.

Sounds ok so far, right. Well think about it for a minute. Your car was only a year old because you sell your car every two to three years and buy a new one. When you sell this one you will either have to disclose to the buyer the wreck or they will easily find out. So what does that mean? It means this: Your car is worth less because of the wreck than it would have been had it not been involved in a wreck. This is called the “diminished value”.

The nest question is: What can you do about it? This question was answered by the Texas Supreme Court in 2003. In 2003, the Court decided the case, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Schaefer. Maunufacturers was Schaefers insurance company. They fixed Schaefers car. Schaefer did not dispute the quality or adequacy of the repairs. But he did say that Manufacturers owed him an additional $2600 due to market perceptions that a damaged and subsequently repaired vehicle is worth less than one that has never been damaged. Again, this is called the diminished value and he expected Manufacturers to pay the extra money to compensate him for the lose.

Subrogation In Texas Auto Claims

October 29, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas Insurance Code, art. 5.06-1 and the particular policy’s “Right to Recover Payment clause create a statutory and contractual right of subrogation against a third party motorist to recover uninsured and underinsured payments the insurance company makes to its customer. If the insurance company makes a payment to any person under this coverage, the insurance company is entitled to recover up to the amount of the payment from the proceeds of any judgement or settlement with the person. This is spelled out in art.5.06(6).

The result of this rule is that a person who collects uninsured or underinsured benefits from their insurance company as the result of someone else’s negligent actions in a car wreck type of situation, cannot turn around and sue that individual. Or, if you do sue the responsible party and they are successful in collecting money from that individual, then they must pay back the insurance company for the benefits they have paid on the insured persons behalf. This of course is limited to paying the insurance company back only up to the amount they have paid out. Any excess would belong to the injured, insurance company customer. The purpose of this rule is to prevent a double recovery by the injured party.

What happens most of the time in real life is that the injured, not at fault person, makes a claim against the person who caused the injury. The injured person then discovers that the atfault person is either uninsured or underinsured. They then make the uninsured or underinsured claim against their own insurance company. Rarely, or almost never does the injured party pursue a further claim against the atfault party. However, the insurance company that paid the benefits will do an asset check on the atfault party and make a determination as to whether or not it is financially worthwhile to pursue the atfault party.

Cancellation And Nonrenewal Of Certain Liability Policies In Texas

October 26, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

In Texas, there are rules regulating the conditions for an insurance company to cancel certain liability policies or to opt to nonrenew the policies. These rules are found primarily in Section 551 of the Texas Insurance Code.

To begin with, one rule found in Section 551.052 says that an insurance company cannot cancel a liability policy that is a renewal or continuation policy. This makes sense, otherwise, why would anybody buy this type of policy.

Another rule in this section says that an insurance company may not cancel a liability policy during the initial policy term after the 60th following the date the policy was issued. So if you buy a one year policy on September 15, it cannot be cancelled after November 15.

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Coverage In Texas

October 13, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

PIP coverage is comparable to Medical Payments Coverage in a Texas Insurance Policy in that both are no-fault and pay for similar expenses. The difference between the two is this: Medical Payments Coverage only pays for reasonable and necessary medical expenses. PIP pays for that and up to 80% of lost wages, both to a maximum of whatever the amount of coverage is that has been purchased. Their similarity is that both are nofault coverages.

Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.063(b) sets up PIP coverage as a quick source (payable with 30 days of providing the information needed to pay the claim) of funds for an insured accident victim when the losses are for medical expenses or lost wages. The legal minimum is $2500, but much higher amounts can be purchased. The highest this writer has seen by an individual is $50,000.

PIP coverage exists in every automobile policy automaticly, unless rejected in writing by each insured. This is firmly established in Texas law in the cases, Ortiz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co., and Old American v. Sanchez.

What Is “Bad Faith” Insurance In Texas?

October 10, 2009 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most people have heard the terms, “Good faith”, “Bad faith”, “The duty of good faith and fair dealing”, and “Statutory bad faith”. The question would be: What do these terms mean and why do we care? In Texas, as in many other states, the duty of an insurance company to its customer, at least in the automobile and homeowners’ policies, go beyond just what the policy says.

Statutory bad faith is violation of statutes found in the Texas Insurance Code. These statutory violations are primarily found in Section 541.060 and Section 541.061.

Common-law bad-faith and statutory bad faith standards are essentially the same according to the Texas Supreme Court in their deciding of Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Boyd.