Articles Posted in Auto Insurance

Parker County insurance lawyers need to be able to read and discuss policy terms from a legal standpoint with prospective clients. A 1978, Dallas Court of Appeals case styled Republic Insurance Company v. Bolton may help in this regard.

M. Dean Bolton sued Republic Insurance Company, his insurer, for medical expenses and lost wages under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) endorsement to his family automobile insurance policy. The injuries which formed the basis of Bolton’s claim resulted from an accident which occurred while he was driving a modified Volkswagen, referred to as a “dune buggy,” in an off-road race in Oklahoma. The sole disputed issue at trial was whether the dune buggy was a “motor vehicle” under the terms of the policy. This issue was submitted to a jury, which found that the dune buggy was a motor vehicle within the meaning of the policy. The trial court rendered judgment upon the verdict, and Republic appealed. This Court affirmed.

Republic’s initial argument was that the issue of whether the dune buggy was a motor vehicle under the policy was a question of law which should not have been submitted for jury determination, and hence, that the jury’s finding should be disregarded and judgment rendered against Bolton’s claim. Alternatively, Republic urges that the jury’s finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

Arlington insurance law lawyers will have clients who travel to foreign countries and as a result will get asked questions about coverage outside the United States. The simple answer to this question would be to read the policy. The Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] issued an opinion in 1986 that partially addressed this issue. The style of the case is McGalla v. State Farm.

Here is some relevant information from that case.

On March 3, 1984, McCalla was involved in an automobile accident on the island of Jamaica. He was hospitalized and treated. He has incurred expenses in excess of $2,500. Before the accident, McGallas was issued an insurance policy which was in effect at the time of the accident. This policy contained PIP coverage which was mandated by the Legislature in the Texas Insurance Code. State Farm denied benefits because the policy applied only to accidents and losses which occurred in the United States and its territories or possessions, Puerto Rico or Canada. Thus, State Farm argues, the policy was not in effect when McCalla was driving in Jamaica.

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will have run across the type of situation that is presented in this 1996, opinion. This is a Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case styled, Zamora v. Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

Gracie Vela (wife of Jesus Toc) was operating Jesus Toc’s automobile when she was involved in an accident with Pete and Janie Zamora. At the time of the accident, Gracie Vela was named as an excluded driver in Mr. Toc’s automobile insurance policy with Dairyland. The Zamoras filed suit based on negligence, gross negligence, and negligent entrustment. Dairyland denied coverage on the basis of the named driver exclusion in the policy.

Thereafter, the Zamoras entered into an agreed judgment against Jesus Toc and Gracie Vela, and both parties filed suit against Dairyland on the basis that Dairyland wrongfully failed to provide coverage. Dairyland filed motion for a summary judgment asserting it had no duty to provide coverage because Gracie Vela was an excluded driver. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of Dairyland and this appeal ensued.

Fort Worth insurance lawyers might run into this type of strange situation and if they do, they will be glad they have this opinion to reference.

It is a 2004, case from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] and is styled Hamby v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s judgment sustaining State Farm’s second special exceptions to Hamby’s pleadings, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Hamby, and dismissing the cause. In his sole issue, Hamby contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his case because an insurer cannot force an insured to transfer title to a “totaled” vehicle as a condition of paying the insured the actual cash value of the vehicle. This court affirmed the trial court.

Dallas insurance lawyers might one day have this to deal with.

The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1975, styled Allen v. Manhatten Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Here is some relevant information.

This is a suit on an insurance policy in which the Allen sued his insurance carrier, Manhatten, on the grounds that the destruction of his tank truck was caused by an ‘explosion’ within the terms of the insurance policy. Trial was to the Court without a jury and a take-nothing judgment was entered. This court sustained the judgment.

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys might? run across this situation.

This is an opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals that was issued in 1965. The style of the case is, Great American Insurance Co. v. Lane.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Great American’s motion was overruled. Lane’s motion was sustained. This court agreed with the decision of the trial court.

Mineral Wells lawyers will at some point have someone ask about coverage on an insurance policy where the loss seems to have been caused by wear and tear. Back in 1952, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case styled, Republic Casualty Co. v. Mayfield.

Here is what was stated in that case.

Suit was brought in the County Court at Law by W. B. Mayfield, against Republic Casualty Company, for loss sustained by him which he claims to have been covered under the terms of a certain automobile policy issued by the Republic.

Palo Pinto County attorneys might find this opinion regarding collision coverage interesting. The style of the case is, Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Koenig, and it is a 1953 case from the Galveston Court of Appeals. Here is some of the relevant background.

This was a suit by the owner of an automobile against his insurance carrier for the damages to his automobiles, less the deductible, occasioned by a collision with a rock on the roadbed. That collision was alleged to have knocked the drain-plug out from the underside of the vehicle, resulting in the loss of oil, and burning and scoring the motor.

After Calvert denied liability, Koenig sued for the cost of such repairs, less the deductible amount.