Commercial Policies

Policy Cancellation – Late Payment

June 23, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will have clients come to them wherein the insurance company is denying a claim. The stated reason for denial is that the policy was cancelled due to late payment. The Austin Court of Appeals ruled on this issue in May 2015. The style of the case is, Plasma Fab, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Company.

Plasma Fab, an ornamental iron construction contractor, purchased a general liability policy from Scottsdale in May 2008 and financed payment through premium finance company BankDirect. BankDirect paid all premiums in advance, and Plasma Fab was to make monthly payments to BankDirect. The premium finance agreement gave BankDirect authority to cancel the policy on behalf of Plasma Fab and seek a refund of unearned premiums for nonpayment of premium “after proper notice has been mailed as required by law.” Plasma Fab was chronically late making payments, and twice the policy was cancelled and reinstated. It is the third cancellation that is at issue.

On November 24, 2008, BankDirect prepared a notice of intent to cancel the policy effective December 4, 2008, which was ten days following the date the notice was prepared. However, BankDirect did not mail the notice of intent to cancel to Plasma Fab until the next day, November 25, 2008, so that the stated date of cancellation was only nine days after the date the notice was mailed. On December 4, 2008, after 5:00 p.m., BankDirect mailed a notice of cancellation to Scottsdale effective December 4, 2008.

Insurance And Removal To Federal Court

April 25, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Richardson insurance law attorneys will find that when suing insurance companies that the companies want to remove cases to Federal Court. Federals Courts are more favorable grounds for insurance companies to fight their legal battles. Insurance lawyers working for the insureds want to keep the fight in State Courts.

A 2015, opinion from the US District Court, Fort Worth Division is a good opinion to read. It is styled, Living Word Teaching Center v. Robert Morris Adams, Jr. and Allstate Insurance Company.

Living Word brought the instant insurance action in State Court. The church, secured an insurance policy from Allstate covering its 5,000 square foot church. The church later built a large arena next to the church and sought additional coverage for the arena from Allstate. In December 2013, the arena suffered a collapse and was damaged. When Living Word filed an insurance claim for the damage suffered, Allstate advised that the arena was not listed on the policy and therefore, was not covered.

Named Property In An Insurance Policy

November 16, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will tell you that they need to know a few things to be able to properly discuss the legal aspects of a claim with a potential new client. One, what are the facts of the claim. Two, what does the policy say. And three, how do the courts interpret situations similar to the situation being dealt with.

Unpublished opinions historically are not given a lot of notice but they do give an attorney insight into how the courts look at specific situations. A 1996, unpublished opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals is worth reading. It is styled American Indemnity Company v. McFarland Insurance Agency. Here is some of the relevant information from that case that is worth knowing.

The insurance carrier, American Indemnity, in this case issued a Texas commercial package through McFarland which contained four different commercial coverages: fire and extended, glass, general liability, and inland marine. The insured purchased the inland marine to insure video equipment.

Who Is Insured Under An Insurance Policy

November 8, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mansfield insurance lawyers have to be able to read an insurance policy and advise a client about what the policy means. A 1998, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case shows how this court interpreted a policy. The style of the case is, Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Commercial Union. Here is some of the relevant information.

Sears and Weingarten Realty, Inc. (Weingarten) entered into a lease agreement whereby Sears was to lease space in a shopping center owned by Weingarten. Under the terms of the lease, Weingarten was obligated to maintain comprehensive public liability insurance protecting Sears against liability for injury to persons or property occurring in the common areas of the shopping center. The relevant provision of that lease is as follows:

The landlord further agrees to maintain in an insurance company qualified to do business in the State of Texas, Comprehensive Public Liability Insurance, including property damage, insuring Landlord and Tenant against liability for injury to persons or property occurring in or about the Common Areas on the Entire Premises or arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or occupancy thereof. The limits of liability under such insurance shall not be less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for death or bodily injury and for property damage.

Insurance Companies And Signing Documents

September 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers will tell you to be careful about what you sign when dealing with an insurance company. A recent case from the Eastern District of Texas re-intereates this point. The style of the case is, Dana O’Quinn v. General Star Indemnity Company. Here is some of the relevant information from that case.

On January 22, 2204, Dana’s husband Brian filed the Articles of Incorporation for Cahoots Entertainment. Dana completed an insurance application from General Star.

A fire occurred on July 4, 2011. A substantial claim was made. On February 15, 2012, Dana signed a Policyholder’s Property Damage Release that stated she accepted the settlement of all claims, but reserved the right to pursue “a supplemental claim for additional damages, if discovered, and to review and revisit the depreciation calculation.” General Star then issued a final payment. On February 6, 2013, Dana filed a supplemental claim for additional damages. A lawsuit was filed by Dana on July 24, asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith. Both sides filed Motions For Summary Judgment.

Commercial Roof Hail Damage Claim

September 6, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys who handle hail damage claims need to ready this recent opinion out of the United States District Court, Dallas Division. The style of the case is Hamilton Properties v. American Insurance Company. The opinion was issued in July 2014. Here is the relevant information.

This case arises out of a dispute regarding an insurance company’s decision to disclaim coverage and deny its client’s claim for property damage following a hailstorm. Plaintiffs are suing for: (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (3) violations of the Texas Insurance Code; (4) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) misrepresentation; and (7) common law fraud by misrepresentation. Defendant The American Insurance Company (“AIC”) has moved for summary judgment with respect to all of these claims.

The Property was originally covered under an umbrella insurance policy through Hamilton Properties’ hospitality management company. However, on February 16, 2009 the Property was added to Hamilton Properties’ insurance policy number S 67 MXX 80895731, whose coverage ended September 24, 2009.

Deleting Vehicle From Insurance Coverage

June 5, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys in the Dallas and Fort Worth areas need to know about a recent United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. It is styled, Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. The Travelers Indemnity Company; Frontier Mining & Material, L.L.C. Here is the relevant information.

Travelers issued a commercial automobile insurance policy to Big D Concrete, Inc. (“Big D”) with a policy period of November 7, 2010 through November 7, 2011. Bituminous issued a commercial automobile insurance policy to Frontier for a policy period of June 10, 2011 through June 10, 2012. In August 2011, Big D leased a 1999 Mack tractor and a 1999 Vantage trailer (“the Tractor and Trailer”) to Frontier as evidenced by an Equipment Lease (“the Lease”) dated in August 2, 2011 and an Addendum to Equipment Lease dated August 5, 2011. The Equipment Lease required Frontier to insure against the entire risk of loss related to the lease equipment and provided that Frontier’s insurance policy coverage would be primary and non-contributing.

On August 10, 2011, a Policy Change Request was submitted on behalf of Big D to Travelers requesting that 10 units owned by Big D be deleted from its commercial automobile insurance policy with Travelers. The Tractor and Trailer were among the 10 units deleted from the policy with Travelers. The Policy Change Request was ultimately approved and an endorsement change (“the Endorsement”) was issued with an approval date retroactively effective to August 8, 2011. Travelers issued to Big D a refund of $3,847 in premiums for the 10 units once the policy change was approved and in effect.

Policy Exclusions – Interpretations

April 17, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance lawyers need to be able to know how the courts interpret insurance policy exclusions. A recent finding from a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas is helpful. The style of the case is, The Burlington Insurance Company v. Midlothian Chamber of Commerce, et al.

The Chamber sponsored a bike-a-thon in which John Shumaker participated. Shumaker was seriously injured and later sued the Chamber in Texas district court, claiming that his personal injuries resulted from various acts of negligence at the event. Shumaker alleges that the Chamber “organized and promoted” the bike-a-thon, which was a “scenic ride and tour of historic homes as well as newer neighborhood[s]” and was “not a race.” He asserts claims in the nature of negligence.

TBIC is paying the Chamber’s defense costs in the state case but initiated this declaratory judgment, requesting that the Court find that TBIC has no duty to defend the state suit or to indemnify the Chamber for the claims that Shumaker asserts.

Insured’s Fixing Problems

October 6, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance attorneys will find this news from the Texas Supreme Court helpful in advising clients how to proceed in situations where a condition exists and can get worse over time.

The news is from The Southeast Texas Record and the title of the article is, “Texas SC: Insurer Must Pay Homebuilder For Costs Of Voluntary Remediation.”

Here is what the article tells us.

Plumbing Leak Issue In Insurance

September 21, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys will see commercial policies that need interpretation. A recent El Paso Court of Appeals case will help them to understand how courts interpret insurance policies. The style of the case is, American National Property & Casualty Company v. Fredrich 2 Partners, LTD.

This is a case that was decided on cross motions for summary judgment. Here is some relevant information.

Fredrich owned seven commercial buildings insured against property damage under a policy issued by American National. During a severe winter storm where temperatures remained below freezing for four consecutive days, an insulated copper pipe in one of the buildings froze and ruptured, causing water damage to the building’s two interior units. At the time of the incident, one unit was occupied and heated while the other sat vacant and unheated. The pipe that froze and ruptured was located in the attic above the vacant unit.