Fort Worth insurance lawyers would want to read this case from County Court @ Law #3 in Tarrant County. The case is styled Stadium Auto, Inc. v. Loya Insurance Company and the opinion was issued by the El Paso Court of Appeals.
Here is some relevant information.
Stadium Auto, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Loya Insurance Company.
Dallas insurance lawyers would want to be aware of this recent case out of the United States Southern District Court, McAllen Division. The style is Samuel Gacia, et al, v. Geovera Specialty Insurance Company.
Insurance companies prefer to have cases in Federal Court. Attorneys suing insurance companies prefer to be in State Court. The reasons will not be discussed here. But this case discusses how a Federal Court looks at which Court a case should be in.
Here is some of the relevant information:
Dallas insurance lawyers who deal with insurance companies very often probably already know this, but for those of you who do not – here is what you need to know and consider when dealing with an insurance company.
1) An insurance company is not your friend. They may sound nice initially when talking with you but they are, from the start, working and trying to find ways to keep from paying on a claim. That is what they do. Never make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Their job is to make money by keeping from paying claims any way they can.
2) The Texas Insurance Code is one place where the laws governing insurance companies and their conduct is regulated. The Texas Department of Insurance is suppose to regulate the insurance companies. The reality is that TDI is overworked and understaffed. If you really want to be treated right by an insurance company – then you must hire an attorney.
Weatherford attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Graford, Cool, Millsap, Springtown, Aledo, Azle, Willow Park, and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties need to know the laws related to life insurance claims.
Almost all denials of life insurance policy claims based on the allegation of a misrepresentation in the application can be defeated. This one is one of the few that was not. Only an experience Insurance Law Attorney is going to be able to help draw the distinction.
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1988. The style of the case is, Lilly Sharp v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Company.
Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Fort Worth, Dallas, Duncanville, Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, and other places in the Dallas and Fort Worth area will run across various types of insurance policies. The most common are automobile policies and homeowners insurance policies. But there are also life insurance policies, disability policies and credit policies. Those are all normal. But there are also types of policies you do not see very often. One type that is rarely seen is insurance that covers specialty items such as jewelry.
The San Antonio Court of Appeals had a case in 1996, that dealt with the theft of jewelry. The style of the case is, “Tivoli Corp. v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co.” Here is a brief discussion of the opinion.
Kessler, a jewelry salesman, was traveling between sales locations when he stopped at a check cashing business owned by a friend. Kessler parked his car in the parking lot and left $78,000.00 worth of jewelry in his trunk. He went inside, used the restroom and stood by a window with his friend in a secured area. Kessler then saw thieves taking the jewelry from his car’s trunk. He ran from the secured area through the lobby and attempted unsuccessfully to stop the thieves. The insured notified the agent of the theft and filed a proof of loss for the jewelry. Jewelers Mutual denied the claim stating that the jewelry was not in Kessler’s possession and that the unattended vehicle exclusion provision applied. This exclusion excluded coverage of jewelry in transit unless the property was at all times in the possession of the person transporting it or in a vehicle that was attended.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers and all those in Tarrant County should know what “negligent entrustment” is as it relates to auto claims.
Negligent entrustment in auto claims is where one person allows another person to use their auto when they should be aware that it is an unsafe thing to do. This is better explained by the Tyler Court of Appeals in a 1998, case styled, Huynh v. R. Warehousing & Port Services, Inc.
Here are some facts. Specifically, Huynh was driving her Hyundai automobile when she was involved in an accident with Thompson near the intersection of 610 Loop and IH-10 in Houston. Exactly how the accident occurred and who was negligent was contested at trial. Huynh sued Warehousing for negligently entrusting their vehicle a driver who refused to take a drug test after the accident.
Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Dallas and other areas will run across situations where an insurance company is denying a claim based on the defense of arson. This happened in the case, Southland Lloyd’s Insurance Company v. Tomberlain. The case is a Texas Supreme Court case decided in 1996.
Here is some relevant information:
Charles W. Tomberlain is an independent insurance agent who owns the Charles Tomberlain Insurance Agency in Longview. His son, Chuck Tomberlain, is an agent with the agency. In addition, Chuck Tomberlain owns and manages numerous real properties in and around Longview. In 1988, Chuck Tomberlain purchased a small house, for $13,200.00. Chuck Tomberlain then spent approximately $500.00-$1,000.00 improving the house. On September 9, 1988, Chuck Tomberlain executed a contract for sale of the house to Trennis Willis for $20,000.00, to be paid in monthly installments over ten years at twelve percent interest. Willis immediately began occupying the house. Chuck Tomberlain, acting as agent for the Charles Tomberlain Insurance Agency, issued a policy on the house with Republic Insurance Company in August 1988. On August 15, 1991, the Republic insurance policy on the house expired. Chuck Tomberlain did not renew the policy at that time because his father’s agency had stopped writing policies with Republic.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Benbrook, Crowley, Lake Worth, Saginaw, and other places in Tarrant County need to keep up with as many cases as they can related to insurance issues. This would include cases that deal with the application that is made in the process of trying to obtain insurance. An experienced Insurance Law Attorney will know details to look for to help a client.
The Texas Insurance Code has many sections that are helpful to lawyers trying to find ways to assist a client obtain insurance benefits. One of those is Section 705.004. It tells us that:
(a) An insurance policy provision that states that false statements made in the application for the policy or in the policy make the policy void or voidable:
Weatherford insurance attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Samson Park, Azle, Hudson Oaks, Peaster, Cool, Poolville, Whitt, Springtown, Millsap, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to know the various ways under the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Common Law that recovery can be made when an insurance claim is wrongfully denied by an insurance company.
“The Record,” a newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin ran an article telling us about a couple suing their insurance company pro se.
A Belleville couple is asking for more than $100,000 from insurance companies that allegedly denied damage claims without cause.
Fort Worth lawyers and those in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Benbrook, Lake Worth, Saginaw, Keller, and other places in Tarrant County need to know about this insurance case.
The case is an opinion issued by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals in 2010. The style of the case is, Glenda and Larry Rice v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Here are some of the relevant facts:
Glenda purchased group life insurance for herself and her husband, as her dependent, through a plan offered by her employer. Larry’s rider provided $50,000 in coverage. Glenda retired in March 2003.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog