Weatherford Insurance Lawyers and those in Aledo, Springtown, Willow Park, Millsap, Azle, Mineral Wells, Cool, Brock, and other places in Parker County would want to know about this life insurance case.
The case opinion was issued by the Houston, 14th Court of Appeals in 1990. The style of the case is, Joseph M. Rumbaut v. Steven and Scott Labagnara.
The issue deals with what is currently, Texas Insurance Code, Section 887.205(b). This section says:
Weatherford insurance law attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Springtown, Aledo, Azle, Millsap, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Cool, and other places in Parker County need to know what the “slayer’s rule” is as it relates to life insurance benefits.
This rule is exemplified in the 1987, Texas Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Coleman. Here is some background.
This is an insurance disqualification case involving the distribution of proceeds of life insurance policies.
Weatherford attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Peaster, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Brock, Millsap, and other places in Parker County need to understand how insurance policies and intentional acts interact.
The Austin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1995, that addresses coverage and intentional acts. The style of the case is, Barbara Misle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
State Farm filed a suit for declaratory relief and recovered summary judgment that it had no duty to defend under the liability insurance provisions of an automobile insurance policy. Here is some background.
Even in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Euless, Bedford, Hurst, Saginaw, Roanoke, Keller, Grapevine, and other locations in the Metroplex area, arson fires occur. One of the first things an insurance company is always going to do when there is a fire claim is investigate for the possibility of arson. If the insurance company determines a fire is arson, the next thing they will do is see if the insureds’ under the insurance policy are responsible or have a motive to set the fire. Of course by this time, the insured needs to be consulting with an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.
A 1987, case from the Dallas Court of Appeals styled, Texas General Indemnity Company v. Jerry L. Speakman and Donald E. Coffman, is interesting based on the facts in the case. There are a lot of legal procedures in the case, which will not be discussed because they are unusual and hard to follow without a lot of legal knowledge. But briefly on the legal aspects, the trial was to the Judge instead of a jury and the Judge ruled in favor of the insurance company. Coffman and Speakman filed a “motion to correct judgment or for new trial” and a “first amended motion to correct judgment or for a new trial.” Surprisingly the Judge reversed his earlier decision and ruled against the Texas General Indemnity Company. He awarded close to $200,000 to the insureds. This appeals court upheld the trial court decision with some modification to the money.
Here are some of the facts in this case.
Insureds living in Haslet, Saginaw, Newark, Cedar Hill, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Hutchins, Dallas, Fort Worth, Benbrook, and other places in Texas rarely know what their insurance policies say. And even if they knew what the policy said they would not really understand. Of course, that is why an experienced Insurance Law Attorney should be consulted.
What about “exemplary damages”? Will your auto insurance pay a claim for exemplary damages? Here is a 1997, that provides some guidance.
The case is styled, Lolitha J. Milligan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The case was decided by the Court of Appeals, 14th District, Houston.
What if you live in Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Dallas, Weatherford, or any other town in Texas and you are in a wreck with a drunk driver? Can you get punative damages from your ininsured / underinsured (UM) insurance policy because the other person was drunk at the time of the accident?
This is one of the issues in the case, Suzanne Vanderlinden v. United Services Automobile Association Property and Casualty Insurance Company. This case was decided in 1994, by the Texarkana Court of Appeals.
In this case Vanderlinden was injured in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. At the trial of this matter the trial judge would not let Vanderlindens’ attorney submit a jury question to the jury asking for punative damages due to the other driver being drunk. Vanderlinden was sueing her own insurance company, United Services Automobile Association Property and Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) to recover monies by way of the underinsured motorist coverage portion of her insurance policy with USAA. The Texarkana Court cited an 1849, Texas Supreme Court case saying, “Punative damages are typically not to compensate a damaged plaintiff for his injuries; rather, they are to discourage the defendant from continuing his heinous activities and to likewise discourage others from similarly misbehaving.” Thus, the issue in this case is whether an injured person may obtain punative damages from the injured persons insurance company through the underinsured motorist clause.
Insurance policies have different forms of coverage depending on what it is that the policyholder purchases. In Texas, a homeowners policy purchased in Grand Praire, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, or Weatherford, is going to have the same basic coverage. Parts of this coverage is for losses such as water damage, hail, fire, wind, and others. But most homeowners insurance policies also have liability coverage.
Liability coverage is coverage that protects and pays on behalf of the policyholder for injuries to others caused by the negligent acts of the policyholder. The normal homeowners policy is not going to pay or protect from acts that are voluntary or committed on purpose.
A lawsuit litigating this issue was decided by a Texas Appeals Court in Houston. The name on the case is State Farm Lloyds v. Henderson, et al. In this case, the underlying facts were that Henderson, after drinking a large amount of alcohol, punched a guy named Burnley in the face causing severe bruises and cuts and the loss of one of Burnley’s teeth. Henderson was sued by Burnley. State Farm Lloyds was obligated to defend if the injuries sustained by Burnley were the result of an accident. If the injuries to Burnley were intentionally or voluntarily caused by Henderson, then State Farm did not have an obligation to defend Henderson, or to pay for any of the damages suffered by Burnley.
A resident of Grand Prairie recently caught his insurance agent in Dallas committing fraud. The agent was taking the cash payments for the premiums from the resident and hand writing a receipt. Sounds okay so far. Next, the agent was pocketing the money rather than forwarding the payment to the insurance company. This could have happened in Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas.
The agent would have continued to have got away with this except that the resident had an accident and got sued and when he turned the lawsuit papers over to the insurance company and was denied coverage the resident went to an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. A subsequent investigation revealed what was happening and a lawsuit is currently going forward against the agent.
Most of the time when people think of insurance fraud, they think in terms of someone staging a theft, an accident, or committing arson to recover monies from an insurance policy. This type of insurance fraud is defined and talked about in the Texas Penal Code, Chapter 35. Section 35.02, describes some of what constitutes an offense and also describes the penalty. The range of punishment is from a Class C misdemeanor, which is a ticket offense, all the way to a Felony of the First Degree, which is punishable by up to life in prison. The monetary cost includes fines up to $10,000, court costs, and restitution.
The Texas Supreme Court in the case Tanner vs Nationwide has ruled in a case concerning exclusions for “intentional acts” committed by an insured driver.
The case facts involved a high speed chase wherein the driver, Gibbons was fleeing the police going at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour in urban and residential neighborhoods, topping 100 miles per hour in rural areas, swerving across the road, going into and across fields, and around police cars. The chase ultimately resulted in Gibbons entering an intersection where the Tanner family was also entering and had the right-of-way. Gibbons did slam on his brakes and skidded to try and avoid a collision with the Tanners. Injuries resulted to the Tanner family.
The Tanners sued Gibbons and took a judgment against Gibbons however Nationwide refused to defend Gibbons or pay for Tanners damages arguing the intentional-injury exclusion in the policy of insurance barred coverage for the Tanners’ claims. Nationwide contended that when Gibbons fled police, he voided coverage under the policy’s intentional-injury exclusion, which withholds coverage for: “Property damage or bodily injury caused intentionally by or at the direction of an insured, including willful acts the result of which the insured knows or ought to know will follow from the insured’s conduct”.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog