Articles Posted in Auto Insurance

Weatherford insurance lawyers need to know the coverages in an auto insurance policy. As for damage to the auto itself, the terms of coverage for damage to the auto are fairly straightforward:

1. “Named-Peril” coverage is provided on “covered autos.” The policy would provide that the carrier will pay for “direct and accidental loss to your covered auto.” The coverage is divided into “collision” coverage and “coverage other than collision.”

2. The “other than collision” coverage insures against more causes of loss than collision coverage. When both collision coverage and “other” peril coverage are purchased, then the insured is said to have “comprehensive” coverage.

Weatherford attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Springtown, Hudson Oaks, and other parts of Parker County need to know the minimum limits required on cars in Texas. But also knowing those limits is important when dealing with an out of state driver.

Fox Business recently ran an article that discusses these limits.

The article tells us that most states have laws outlining the minimum amount of liability coverage you must purchase.

Dallas insurance lawyers need to understand how medical payments (Med Pay) coverage works in auto insurance policies.

Med Pay is an optional coverage in an auto policy. Unlike personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured motorist (UM), it is not a required coverage.

Under this coverage, the insurance company agrees to pay “reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and funeral services because of bodily injury caused by accident and sustained by a covered person.” This insurance agreement uses the term “caused by accident” as opposed to the more specific phrase “auto accident” used in the liability insurance agreement. Essentially this means that any injury that occurs that is related to the use of the auto is going to be covered.

Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Arlington, Grapevine, North Richland Hills, and other places in Tarrant County know that auto liability insurance coverage is mandatory in the State of Texas if you are operating a motor vehicle.

What would be surprising to most in Texas is that some states do not have very effective enforcement mechanisms regarding the requirements of auto liability coverage. One of those states has been Alabama. That is now changing.

The Birmingham News published an article recently that tells us the word “mandatory,” when used in the context of a law, means “permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.”

Weatherford attorneys and those in Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, Millsap, and other places in Parker County need to know and understand the “Omnibus Clause” in an auto insurance policy.

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1967, in the case styled Phoenix Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company. The case is still good law.

This is an appeal that arises from a declaratory judgement action and discusses the omnibus clause in Phoenix’s auto policy.

Weatherford lawyers and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Willow Park, Brock, Millsap, and other places in Parker County would respect the job performed in this case.

This is a 1984, Houston Court of Appeals [1 Dist.] opinion. The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Francis. Here are some facts:

This is a suit to establish insurance coverage and to collect from State Farm the damages recovered by Francis in a trial against an alleged non-named insured.

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys need to know how courts are handling the cases related to first party insurance claims.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in September, 2012, wherein the insured person did not hire an attorney. Instead he handled the case himself. The results are predictable.

The style of the case is, Clark v. Bristol West Insurance Services of Texas, Inc. Here is some of the case information:

Dallas insurance law attorneys and those in Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, and other places in Dallas County need to be aware of this opinion.

The Houston Court of Appeals, 14th District, issued an opinion in 2003 that insurance law attorneys need to know. The style of the case is, Armendariz v. Progressive. Here is some relevant information about the case.

Alejandro and Alma Armendariz, appeal from cross-motions for summary judgment granted in favor of Progressive County. In two issues, they contend that Progressive owed Alma the duty to defend and indemnify her in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Alma’s mother.

Dallas insurance lawyers and those in Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, Irving, and others areas in the metroplex need to be aware of this case.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1972, that is still good law. The style of the case is, Snyder v. Allstate Insurance Company. Here is some relevant information.

The controversy here is between Allstate, which issued an automobile insurance policy to J.B. Rhodes, and Fidelity and Casualty Company, which issued a policy to John Snyder, as to which insurer was obligated to defend Robert Snyder (minor son of John Snyder) and pay damages arising out of the collision of an automobile in the possession of and used by Darla Rhodes (minor daughter of J.B. Rhodes) while being driven by Robert Snyder with Darla Rhodes as a passenger.

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys and those in Fort Worth, Dallas, North Richland Hills, Bedford, Hurst, Grapevine, and other places in Texas will find unusual claims being made every once and a while. Here is one that seems kind of strange.

The case is an opinion issued in 1997, by the Texas Supreme Court. The style of the case is, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company v. Robert Griffin.

This was a declaratory judgment action. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, James Royal III, in a suit brought by Robert Griffin. The trial court granted summary judgment for Farmers. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Farmers had a duty to defend Royal but not to indemnify him. This Court holds that, under the facts alleged against Royal, Farmers has no duty to defend Royal in the underlying suit. The Court further held that Farmers’ duty to indemnify Royal constituted a justiciable controversy properly reached and decided by the trial court. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Farmers.

Contact Information