Articles Posted in Commercial Policies

Residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Irving, Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, and other cities in Texas would probably get confused trying to understand what is a covered loss in an insurance policy and what is not a covered loss.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Texas recently issued an opinion is a case covering this topic. The opinion, styled Markel American Insurance Company v. Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Sales & Marketing Ltd., and Lennar Homes of Texas Land & Construction Ltd., was issued on April 19, 2011.

This case involved several legal issues but the most relevant here dealt with how courts examine these cases to see what is a covered loss versus a loss that may have been incurred that is not covered by the insurance policy. Here is some background.

Insureds in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Hudson Oaks, Aledo, Azle, Peaster, Cresson, Cool, Brock, Poolville, Springtown, and other places in Texas would have a very hard time reading and understanding what an insurance policy says. That is the main reason why an experienced Insurance Lawyer needs to be consulted whenever a claim is denied.

The Texas Court of Appeals in Amarillo decided a case on April 18, 2011, that dealt with policy interpretation. The style of the case is, Evanston Insurance Company v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc. In this case the court of appeals granted a summary judgment in favor of D&L Masonry. Here is some background.

Evanston issued a commercial general liability policy to D&L. The policy periods are not in dispute. D&L was engaged in the masonry business and contracted to install masonry and renovations to public schools in Muleshoe, Texas. Because of difficulties and weather concerns, D&L did not do the masonry work until after the window frames and windows had been installed. Because the windows and frames were already in place, D&L had to attempt to seal the area between the frames and brick with mortar. In an effort to prevent masonry mortar from damaging the windows and frames, D&L used masking tape around the window frames and soap and water to soap the windows. After D&L had completed the masonry work, the schools were examined and mortar stains were found on many of the window frames. Additionally, some of the frames were scratched when D&L attempted to remove some of the excess mortar that had fallen on the frames during the masonry work. D&L was eventually charged and they paid to have the windows replaced at a cost of $58,113. D&L paid the amount and submitted a claim to Evanston for reinbursement. Evanston denied the claim stating the policy exclusions applied because the window frame damage was damage to property upon which D&L performed its work. D&L then sued Evanston.

Insurance purchasers in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Irving, Mesquite, Cockrell Hill, Oak Cliff, Richardson, or any other place in Texas need to know about the “known-loss” exclusion in an insurance policy.

One way of understanding this exclusion is by reading the case, Colony National Insurance Company v. Unique Industrial Product Company, L.P. This case was decided by the United States District Court, Southern District, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, on April 7, 2011. This is a summary judgment ruling.

Here is some background.

Business owners in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Cedar Hill, Irving, De Soto, Duncanville, Mesquite, Garland, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Richardson, and other places in Texas might be interested in the following case if they find themselves in a position where they are buying or selling a business.

The style of the case is, Ford Bacon & Davis, L.L.C. v. Travelers Insurance Co., et al. This case was decided on March 14, 2011, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This is a case where one company purchased the assets of another company.

A 1996 Asset Purchase Agreement (the agreement) was between Ford, Bacon & Davis, L.L.C. (FBD LLC) and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. (FBC Inc.) The agreement explicity excluded coverage relevant to this lawsuit, which is “asbestos related lawsuits.”

For folks in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, North Richland Hills, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Keller, Colleyville, Saginaw, Lake Worth, and other places in Texas, interpreting an insurance policy is something that is very hard to do. Even an experienced Insurance Lawyer cannot always assure someone who asks what an outcome may be if there is a dispute.

Based on decisions and opinions issued by courts in Texas, an experienced Insurance Law Attorney can give guidance to probable outcomes of disputes. Here is one of those cases that the attorney would have read and used as a resource.

The case is Colony Insurance Company v. ACREM, INC. d/b/a Stetsons Nightclub, and was decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. The opinion was issued on February 23, 2011.

Business owners in Weatherford, Parker County, Aledo, Azle, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Hudson Oaks, Brock, Springtown, Poolville, Cresson, and other communities through out Texas would naturally wonder about the coverages provided in their commercial insurance policies. Very few people would understand all the language. This lack of understanding extends to insurance agents, insurance companies, and even the courts and experienced Insurance Law Attorneys. The value of attorneys who deal in this area of the law is that they can provide guidance in how the courts would ultimately decide in the cases where there is a dispute. The Spreme Court of Texas recently decided a case where policy interpretation was part of the issue in controversy. The case is, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company F/K/A The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Pa. The opinion in this case was issued on February 25, 2011.

This is an insurance coverage dispute case. The insurance company took the position that based on policy language and the pleading in the lawsuit in which their insured was sued that they had no duty to defend the lawsuit or pay any damages. This is known as the “eight corners rule”, the eight corners being the “four corners” of the insurance contract and the “four corners” of the pleading, or lawsuit papers. In other words, when the two are read together, is there anything in the lawsuit allegations that invoke responsibility by the insurance company in the insurance contract to defend their insured or pay for any damages that may be part of the lawsuit.

National Union filed summary judgement motion with the trial court that was granted. The first level appeals court upheld the trial court decision. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case back to the trial level for further determinations.