Articles Posted in General

Let’s say a Grand Prairie business, or one in Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas, gets sued and a judgement is rendered against them. Does the sued business’ insurance company pay the money to their insured to handle or to the person who sued their insured to resolve the judgement?

This was the issue in a lawsuit recently ruled on by The Honorable Senior District Judge, A. Joe Fish. This case, was decided on April 5, 2010, in the United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. The style of the case is, Mark Rotella and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company.

Mark Rotella and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes (Benchmark) were sued by Joan Cutting (Cutting) for numerous reasons including, construction defects in her home, fraudulent billing practices, and breach of contract. Cutting prevailed in the underlying suit and obtained a judgement for $2,671,187.26 in actual and treble damages, $336,342.59 in attorneys’ fees, and $191,189.95 in pre-judgement interest, post-judgement interest, and costs. The immediate lawsuit resulted between Benchmark and Mid-Continent Casualty Company (Casualty) over the obligations of Casualty under the policy of insurance they had with Benchmark.

Attention residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, and everywhere else in Texas. Sometimes there is a case that makes you ask, “What happened”.

A case that was decided in by the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), on March 30, 2010, makes you ask, “What happened?” This case decision was written by Justice, Jefferey V. Brown, and is styled, Joe M. Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, LLC, and Ernest Bustos v. Terra Nova Insurance Company, LTD., Guaranty National Insurance Company, The Burlington Insurance Company, and United National Insurance Company.

In this case, Joe M. Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, LLC, and Ernest Bustos purchased pay telephones from American Telecommunications Company, Inc. (ATC). When buying the telephones, ATC allegedly represented that it would buy back the phones after 36 months or at a reduced price before 36 months if the phones were unsatisfactory. ATC also allegedly represented that it had insured the value of the phones if it was unable to repurchase them. ATC allegedly marketed that Northern & Western Insurance Company would provide primary insurance for its “buy back program,” and would provide excess insurance for the program. When requests were submitted for ATC to buy back the phones, ATC did not honor the requests. When the plaintiffs tried to collect on the insurance policies the claims were denied.

How about a church in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Weatherford, Fort Worth, or anywhere else in Texas who needs to sue an insurance company? How do they stay out of Federal Court? Answer is the same whether it is a church or not: Find an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, recently had a case like this. The case was partialy decided on March 11, 2010, by Judge, Ewing Werlein, Jr. The style of the case is, New Bethlehem Missionary, Baptist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company and Eugene M. Poldrack.

New Bethlehem Missionary, Baptist Church (Church) sued Church Mutual Insurance Company (Mutual) and Poldrack for various violations of Texas Insurance Code, the Prompt Payment of Claims Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mutual had filed papers requesting to invoke the insurance contract’s appraisal process. Church claimed that Mutual’s right to appraisal had been waived.

What happens if you get treated at a hospital in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas and the treatment was the result of an accident that someone else caused? Guess what the lawyers answer is! It depends!

The Texas Property Code, Section 55.002, states in part that “A hospital has a lien on a cause of action or claim of an individual who receives hospital services for injuries caused by an accident that is attributed to the negligence of another person.” Okay! What does this mean? This is answered by Section 55.003(a), where its states in part, the lien attaches to:

(2) a judgment of a court in this state … brought by the injured individual … to recover damages arising from an injury for which the injured individual is admitted to the hospital or receives emergency medical services; and

How does someone living in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford know whether or not they are entitled to benefits under an insurance policy? Let’s see if this helps.

In the case, Palma v. Verex Assurance, Inc., a 5th Federal Circuit case, the court stated that an intended third party beneficiary may sue under the Texas Insurance Code statutes. This Federal Court reviewed Texas cases and other Fifth Circuit cases and concluded that “if the Texas Supreme Court were presented with the question before us it would hold that standing under Article 21.21 (now Chapter 541.001) is satisfied by not only those who can establish privity of contract or reliance on a representation of the insurer, but also by those who can establish that they were an intended third party beneficiary of the insurance contract.” In this case the court set out the standards under Texas law for third-party beneficiary status:

1) the claimant was not privy to the written agreement between the insured and insurer;

The insurance company in this headline does business in all of Texas, including Weatherford, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, and Dallas. This story originates out of Ohio.

The Columbus Dispatch published an article on March 10, 2010 titled, “Nationwide Lawsuit Settled For $6 Million”. The lawsuit was a case filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in 2005. In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Nationwide collected more than the maximum annual premiums outlined in their term-life insurance policies. This atleast is what court documents say. The allegations include accusing Nationwide of fraud and violating State of Ohio consumer protection laws. More than likely, these Ohio consumer protection laws are similar in many ways to the Texas consumer laws found in the Texas Business & Commerce Code and known as the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

A Nationwide spokeswoman declined commenting on the case and the settlement. Further, Nationwide, in agreeing to the settlement, is not admitting to any wrongdoing. Nationwide claims to be entering into the settlement agreement to avoid any additional expense, inconveniences, burdens, and distractions associated with the lawsuit.