Articles Posted in General

Springtown insurance lawyers who handle fire cases need to read this article. One reason an insurance company uses for denying a claim is the assertion that the insured caused the fire, in other words arson by the insured. The Arizona Republic published an article on May 14, 2015, that brings into question the credibility of some fire reports. The article is titled, Ties Between Phoenix Fire Department, Insurer At Issue In Lawsuit. Here is what it tells us.

A so-called “hand-in-hand” relationship between the Phoenix Fire Department’s arson squad and a private insurance company is expected to come under scrutiny in the retrial of a civil lawsuit against the insurer by a woman wrongfully accused of setting fire to her home.

When the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office dismissed the criminal case against Barbara Sloan because of a lack of evidence, Deputy County Attorney Edward Leiter noted an “incestuous relationship” between the Phoenix Fire Department and Farmers Insurance, the case disposition worksheet says. The Judge agreed, writing that the Fire Department and insurance company seemed to work “hand in hand,” minutes show.

Texas insurance lawyers need to be on the look out for this – drone insurance. I’m kinda curious about it – are you? The Insurance Journal published an article about this issue on May 13, 2014. It is titled, Market For Drone Insurance Expected To Take Off In Nest 5 Years. Here is what it says.

The use of drones could become common practice for almost 40 percent of businesses in fewer than five years, according to corporate risk managers.

Those same risk managers say they will buy drone insurance even if it’s not mandated.

Everman insurance attorneys need to be aware of the people and entities that can be liable under the Texas Insurance Code. Section 541.151 provides that a person who has sustained damages caused by another’s engaging in unfair or deceptive insurance practices may sue the person engaging in those acts or practices. Section 541.002(2) defines “person” to mean “an individual, corporation, association, partnership, reciprocal or interinsurance exchange, Lloyd’s plan, fraternal benefit society, or any other legal entity engaged in the business of insurance, including an agent, broker, adjuster or life insurance counselor.”

In 1998, the Texas Supreme Court applied the plain language of the statute to hold that the term “person includes businesses and individuals “engaged in the business of insurance.” However, the statute would not apply to an insurance company employee that was not engaged in the “business of insurance.” The style of the opinion is, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Garrison Contractors, Inc.

Engaging in unfair practices in “the business of insurance” is the key to liability. Those engaged in it may be liable. Those who are not may not be. Thus, when the Texas Supreme Court concluded that contracts of suretyship are not part of the business of insurance, the court also held that a surety could not be liable for unfair insurance practices. This was a 1995 opinion styled, Great American Insurance Company v. North Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1.

Here is how at least one Grand Prairie insurance lawyer would prove a claim related to property damage. By looking at the 2011, Texas Supreme Court case, Reid Road MUD No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd.

In this case the Court addressed whether an employee of the corporate general partner of a limited partnership qualifies to testify about the fair market value of partnership property under either the Property Owner Rule or Texas Rule of Evidence 701.

Speedy Stop is a Texas limited partnership that owns and operates convenience stores in Texas. Reid Road MUD sought to acquire a waterline easement across land owned by Speedy Stop. The District and Speedy Stop were unable to agree on compensation for the easement, so the District initiated condemnation proceedings pursuant to Texas Property Code, Section 21.012(a).

Texas insurance lawyers need to be keeping abreast of the changes to insurance law being proposed in the 2015 Texas Legislature.

The Dallas News columnist, Dave Lieber, is doing a good job keeping up with the news laws being proposed. One article titled, Watchdog: Texas Insurance Lobbyists Have A Plan You Won’t Like is worth reading. It tells us this:

The Watchdog wants you to know that the insurance industry is trying to slide something slick through the Texas Legislature toward Gov. Greg Abbott’s signing pen that’s designed to pay you smaller insurance claims.

Palo Pinto County lawyers who handle insurance related claims may someday have to deal with a situation regarding identity theft and insurance. If so, this article may be of interest. It is from the Claims Journal and is titled, “Identity Theft Insurance: Is It Worth It?

The article tells us that anyone who isn’t in a high state of alert about safeguarding his or her identity is either in massive denial or is a fatalist. The data breach at Anthem put about 80 million consumers at risk of ID theft, states are seeing a spike in fraudsters using stolen identities to file for income tax refund checks and new hacks seem to be discovered every week. That’s made ID theft protection a booming industry, with new products being launched and existing ones tweaked to help with, and profit from, the anxiety.

H&R Block is the latest player to get into the business. In January, it launched “Tax Identity Shield,” which, for $29.95 a year, does an annual, pretax season scan for your name on websites suspected of selling personal information, sends an e- mail if your information is on another tax return filed through H&R Block, and gives basic help navigating red tape. TransUnion also unveiled a new product in January, a mobile app that, among other things, lets users paying $17.95 a month freeze and unfreeze their credit report with a swipe of their finger. Existing products are going strong: The largest niche player, Lifelock, saw 40 percent of all new members in 2014 join in the year’s final quarter.

Here is information for Texas insurance lawyers. The following are a few new laws being proposed by the Texas Legislature concerning insurance. These proposed laws change existing statutes.

HB 3646 – Insurance Claims and Cerlaln Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance Summary: HB 3646, would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

Insurance lawyers in Dallas will tell you to “read the policy.” Now the reality is that very few people ever read their insurance policy. Most people rely on their insurance agent to sell them a policy they want. This expectation often makes the agent responsible for selling a person a policy that does not provide the coverage that is expected.

An insurance publication called the Insurance Journal contains lots of good information from the insurance world. Most people involved in the insurance business have ready access to this publication, including insurance company managers, agents, adjustors, and attorneys who do insurance work.

A January 5, article is worth reading. It is authored by Christopher J. Boggs and is titled “How To Read Any Insurance Policy: 12 Rules.” Here is what the article tells us.

Most Fort Worth insurance lawyers will be aware of this case. It is a Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] case styled, Allstate v. Rehab Alliance of Texas. This Court upheld the trial Court summary judgment in favor of Rehab Alliance. The opinion is long but here is a little of what it says.

Rehab Alliance is a chiropractic clinic which provided services including chiropractic care, orthopedic and pain management, epidural steroid injections, and radiologists’ services to persons injured in car accidents. As part of its services, Rehab Alliance also provided reports to attorneys outlining injuries and treatment plans for its patients in order to facilitate settlements of their claims for damages.

Allstate claims that Rehab Alliance solicited referrals from attorneys representing such claimants. In those situations, Rehab Alliance would treat the injured parties under a “letter of protection” with the patients’ attorneys. According to Allstate, these letters provided that Rehab Alliance would seek to recover payment of its bills from its patients only if there were a recovery reached by way of settlement or judgment; that is, the patients were released from financial responsibility for health care services if there was no settlement or judgment with an insurer. Allstate alleged these “letters of protection” were concealed from it because they were not included as a part of the settlement packages that attorneys for the various claimants presented to Allstate.