Articles Posted in General

Burleson insurance attorneys and all insurance attorneys need to keep up with the law related to insurance. The Insurance Journal printed a story that should be read to keep up to date in the insurance field of law.

The article tell us the Texas Department of Insurance has posted information and brief summaries of selected bills enacted during the 83rd Legislative regular session that relate to property/casualty insurance.

The bills listed may require action by regulated individuals and entities. The department advised affected entities to refer to the actual bills for the complete content of the legislation.

Attorneys who handle injury cases need to know this case. It is a 2013, case from the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals. It is styled, Schaffer v. Nationwide. Here is the relevant information.

In February 2006, Schaffer, who was driving north-bound on United States Highway 77 and was beginning to merge onto Interstate Highway 37 in northwest Corpus Christi, Texas, collided with a truck driven by Brady Lovins. Schaffer alleges that she suffered injuries to her lower back as a result of the accident. To treat her injuries, Schaffer underwent: physical therapy, first in April to June 2006 and, again, from September 2007 to January 2008; a series of lumbar steroid and other injections in the summer and fall of 2006 and throughout 2007; and, finally, lumbar fusion spinal surgery in February 2008. Schaffer alleges that she continued to suffer severe pain even after her surgery.

In connection with the accident, Schaffer sued Lovins for negligence. Schaffer also sued Lovins’s employer, Tracey Barrett d/b/a Barrett Pools, for vicarious liability because Barrett owned the truck Lovins was driving. Finally, Schaffer sued Nationwide for underinsured motorist benefits owing under her auto and umbrella policies with the company.

Dallas County insurance lawyers will run into situations where a claim for “loss of use” as it relates to a vehicle will need to be made. An opinion that is a good case to look for guidance is from the Austin Court of Appeals in 1997, and is styled, “Mondragon v. Austin.” Here is some of the relevant information.

The facts of this case are undisputed. In mid-1993, Austin borrowed money and purchased a car for his daughter to drive while she was away at college. About two months later, Mondragon, driving drunk and backwards down the road, collided with Austin’s car while Austin’s daughter was driving it. As a result of the accident, the car could not be driven. Austin had the car towed to his home.

Shortly after the accident, Austin filed a claim with Mondragon’s insurance company. The company chose to deny the claim despite the circumstances surrounding the accident. Because Austin had no money and no collision insurance, he had no way to repair the car and did not obtain an estimate of the damage until September 1994, over one year after the accident.

Dallas insurance lawyers who go to trial very often will have run across the situation presented in this 2006, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals opinion. The style of the case is, Perez v. Kleinert. In this case State Farm was sued for uninsured / underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. The attorney for State Farm attempted to mislead the jury by stating he represented the supposedly at fault driver rather than State Farm. Here is some of the relevant information.

At the time of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit, Perez was a passenger in Garza’s automobile. The automobile was a rental car that had been lent to Garza by either Brian or Jeanne Spacek. Before lending the automobile to Garza, the Spaceks had purchased an insurance policy from State Farm. After the accident, Perez made a claim against State Farm for benefits under the Spacek policy. After State Farm allegedly refused to pay benefits, Perez named State Farm as a defendant in the lawsuit, asserting claims against State Farm for “underinsured or uninsured motorist benefits” under the Spacek policy and for violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

State Farm initially took the position that Garza was an insured person under the Spacek policy. Pursuant to that policy, State Farm provided Garza with legal representation by retaining on her behalf the services of Troy Gilreath. Attorney Gilreath appeared before the trial court as Garza’s attorney of record and filed Garza’s answer to the lawsuit. Garza denied liability and asserted a crossclaim against Kleinert. Notably, Garza also alleged, among other things, that Perez, her passenger, was negligent and that his negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Mineral Wells attorneys who handle insurance related cases would like to think they keep up with the law in insurance and part of that involves keeping up with news in the insurance industry. A good source of insurance related news for both the law and general news is the Insurance Journal. Reporter, Stephanie Jones, wrote an article that published on October 18, 2013, that should be interesting to those who follow insurance issues. The title of the article is, “Texas Senator: How Can We Lower Homeowner Insurance Costs?” Here is what the article tells us:

Senator John Carona, a Texas lawmaker, has asked the state insurance department to come up with suggestions for ways to lower homeowners insurance rates in the state.

Texas has consistently been ranked, along with Florida and Louisiana, one of the top three states with the highest homeowners insurance rates in the country. That means there are forty-seven states with lower rates.

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys usually want to stay out of Federal Court because it is usually better for their clients to remain in State Court. The United States District Court, Dallas Division issued an opinion in September 2013, that is worth reading. The style of the case is Ridgeview Presbyterian Church v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This concerns a Motion To Remand.

This case involves an insurance claim filed after a storm damaged Ridgeview’s building. Ridgeview alleges that its insurance carrier, Philadelphia Indemnity acted in concert with an independent adjusting company, Crawford and a licensed adjuster, Lumpkin, to breach the insurance agreement and commit bad faith.

Weatherford insurance lawyers will usually try to keep their lawsuits in the local State and County courts. Insurance companies will try to have the cases removed to Federal Court.

The United States District Court in McAllen, Texas, issued a ruling on September 17, 2013, in the case styled, Guerrero Investments LLC v. American States Insurance Company, et al, wherein the defendants had the case removed to Federal Court and the plaintiffs tried to have the case remanded to State Court.

Here is what the case tells us.

Insurance lawyers in Dallas can tell you that an insurance company that has been sued would prefer to litigate in Federal Court rather than State Court. Here is a case to keep in mind when trying to stay in out of Federal Court.

This case is out of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division. The style is, Bil-Sonic Trading Co., Inc. v. America First Insurance Company, et al, and the opinion was issued in 2013.

In this case, Bil-Sonic sued three defendants in State Court and the defendants had the court removed to Federal Court claiming the suit against was one defendant, Mason, was a fraudulent joiner solely for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Bil-Sonic filed papers attempting to have the case removed back to State Court.