Aledo attorneys might want to know this 1955 case from the Waco Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Home Service Casualty Co. v. Barry. It’s opinion discusses some of the coverage under the collision portion of a Texas auto policy.
Here is some of the relevant information.
This case is grounded on the collision provisions in a policy of insurance covering a truck.
Mineral Wells attorneys might be interested in knowing about this case. It is a 2008. Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] opinion styled, Walker v. Travelers Indemnity Co. In this case the trial court granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of Travelers and Walker appealed and filed a motion for sanctions.
Walker purchased a new 2003 automobile for $39,664.20. From the date of its purchase, the automobile was insured by Travelers under a standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy. Less than four months after the purchase, a tree fell on the automobile during a rainstorm. The automobile sustained interior and exterior damage and was towed to Independent Body Paint Shop. While Walker filed a claim and demanded that the automobile be totaled, Travelers determined that the automobile could be restored and elected to repair it. Although Independent Body performed certain repairs on the automobile, it was not restored to its pre-accident condition, and Walker requested additional policy benefits.
When Travelers refused additional policy benefits, Walker sued for breach of contract and extra-contractual claims.
Mineral Wells insurance lawyers need to know how a “loss of consortium” claim works as it regards insurance.
The 1987 Texas Supreme Court opinion styled McGovern v. Williams helps a person to understand how this type of claim. Here is some relevant information.
This cause concerns the liability of an insurance company under an automobile liability policy. Robert McGovern and wife, Ella Jo, sued respondent Linda Kay Williams for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Mr. McGovern sued for personal injuries and Mrs. McGovern, who was not involved in the accident, sued for loss of consortium. Respondent State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer for Ms. Williams, intervened and tendered $10,000 as full payment of its policy limits. The trial court determined that $10,000 was the applicable policy limit and, after accepting the tender, released and discharged State Farm from any further liability. Ms. Williams’ insurance policy with State Farm insured Ms. Williams to the extent of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence for bodily injury claims. State Farm tendered $10,000 pursuant to the “per person” policy limit. Mrs. McGovern disputed the amount of the tender, contending that she and Mr. McGovern were each entitled to $10,000 in insurance proceeds and that State Farm’s obligation was $20,000. The trial court held State Farm was not obligated to pay the damages sustained by Mr. and Mrs. McGovern in excess of the $10,000 limit. The trial court accordingly accepted State Farm’s tender of $10,000 and released State Farm from any further liability. The trial court also rendered judgment against Ms. Williams in favor of Mrs. McGovern for $10,000.
Fort Worth lawyers need to be able to answer the above question properly when dealing with a coverage issue in an insurance policy.
Here is what the Texas Supreme Court said in a 1999 case. The style of the case is, MidCentury Insurance Company of Texas v. Lindsey.
Here is some relevant information.
Arlington insurance attorneys need to know how Texas courts interpret insurance policies. The 1971, case of Futrell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. is an example of this. The opinion was issued by the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.].
This is a lawsuit for medical payment benefits under an automobile insurance policy. The insured sued the insurer for medical expenses incurred by his minor son, who was injured while riding a motorbike when it collided with a motorcycle. Futrell contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a motorcycle is not an automobile within the meaning of that term as it is used in the medical payments coverage of the Texas family combination automobile insurance policy .
The parties filed this stipulation as to the facts of the case:
Parker County lawyers need to know how the liability limits in an auto policy work. The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1989, that explains this pretty well. The style of the case is, Manriquez v. MidCentury Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment emanating from a wrongful death suit. This appeals court affirmed the decision.
Appellants are the widow and surviving parents of a pedestrian killed when struck by an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor, Gregory Daniel Alkofer. In addition to suing Gregory for negligent driving, his mother, Barbara, was sued for negligent entrustment; and both were charged with gross negligence.
Tarrant County insurance lawyers need to understand how the limits in an auto liability policy work.
A good case that explains how auto liability limits work is American States Insurance Company of Texas v. Arnold. This is a 1996 Dallas Court of Appeals case. The facts are a little confusing but here goes:
Eoline Smith Arnold was involved in a two-car collision while driving an automobile owned by Bessie M. Mayes and in which Mayes was a passenger. Mayes’s vehicle struck another vehicle driven by Michael Rhodes and in which Michael Cassady was a passenger. Both Cassady and Rhodes were injured. Mayes was killed in the accident.
Grand Prairie insurance lawyers who deal with auto insurance need to know how the courts treat cases dealing with “implied permission” in a car insurance situation.
A 1967, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case is still good law on this issue. The style of the case is, The Phoenix Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company.
Here is some of the relevant information.
Parker County lawyers need to know how the courts interpret “permissive driver” in an insurance policy.
A 1989, Dallas Court of Appeals case gives good guidance for answering this question. The style of the case is, United States Fire Insurance Company v. United Service Automobile Association. Here is some of the relevant information.
The underlying liability lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred when Anna was riding back with Douglas Martin from a church sponsored retreat. The car Douglas was driving was owned by his father and was covered by the U.S. Fire policy. Douglas testified that there was some swerving and horseplay prior to the accident. Anna testified that Douglas was zigzagging the wheel back and forth prior to the accident and that she grabbed the wheel on two occasions prior to the accident in an effort to play back with him. The first time Douglas did not object, and the second time was immediately prior to the accident. Anna testified that she and Douglas were “just kind of playing around.” Deposition excerpts are made a part of the record pursuant to stipulations. Anna brought suit against Douglas for injuries she sustained in the accident. Douglas counterclaimed against Anna for his injuries. This counterclaim gives rise to the dispute regarding the duty to defend. The relevant portion of Douglas’s counterclaim states as follows:
Dallas attorneys dealing with used car lot situations would want to know about this recent opinion from the Austin Court of Appeals. The case is styled, SideCars, Inc. v Texas Department of Insurance, et al.
Here is some background information.
This was a summary judgment case wherein the trial court ruled in favor of the Texas Department of Insurance against SideCars and SideCars appealed.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog