Weatherford insurance attorneys need to know the various ways courts look at what it means to be “occupying” a vehicle when making a claim for benefits by way of an auto insurance policy.
One of those ways is discussed in the 1972, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Hart v. Traders & General Insurance Company.
Here is some relevant information about this case.
Arlington insurance attorneys need to know how Texas courts interpret insurance policies. The 1971, case of Futrell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. is an example of this. The opinion was issued by the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.].
This is a lawsuit for medical payment benefits under an automobile insurance policy. The insured sued the insurer for medical expenses incurred by his minor son, who was injured while riding a motorbike when it collided with a motorcycle. Futrell contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a motorcycle is not an automobile within the meaning of that term as it is used in the medical payments coverage of the Texas family combination automobile insurance policy .
The parties filed this stipulation as to the facts of the case:
Parker County lawyers need to know how the liability limits in an auto policy work. The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1989, that explains this pretty well. The style of the case is, Manriquez v. MidCentury Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment emanating from a wrongful death suit. This appeals court affirmed the decision.
Appellants are the widow and surviving parents of a pedestrian killed when struck by an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor, Gregory Daniel Alkofer. In addition to suing Gregory for negligent driving, his mother, Barbara, was sued for negligent entrustment; and both were charged with gross negligence.
Tarrant County insurance lawyers need to understand how the limits in an auto liability policy work.
A good case that explains how auto liability limits work is American States Insurance Company of Texas v. Arnold. This is a 1996 Dallas Court of Appeals case. The facts are a little confusing but here goes:
Eoline Smith Arnold was involved in a two-car collision while driving an automobile owned by Bessie M. Mayes and in which Mayes was a passenger. Mayes’s vehicle struck another vehicle driven by Michael Rhodes and in which Michael Cassady was a passenger. Both Cassady and Rhodes were injured. Mayes was killed in the accident.
Dallas insurance attorneys will run across situations wherein it is hard to understand and advise how the law applies based on the facts of the case when applied to the policy language.
The United States District Court, N. D. Oklahoma, issued an opinion in July 2013 that illustrates how complicated it can sometimes be to advise a client. The style of the case is O’Farrell v. State Farm. Here is some relevant information:
O’Farrell and State Farm, both, filed motions for summary judgment. The parties dispute whether Oklahoma or Texas insurance law applies to plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, and they agree that the choice of law issue is dispositive. Plaintiff Patricia O’Farrell, in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Samuel Joseph Dash (the Estate), argues that Oklahoma law applies and an insured’s own vehicle qualifies as an “uninsured motor vehicle” as a matter of law. Defendant contends that Texas law applies and an exclusion in the policy providing that the insured’s vehicle is not an uninsured motor vehicle is enforceable under Texas law.
Dallas insurance attorneys will see commercial policies that need interpretation. A recent El Paso Court of Appeals case will help them to understand how courts interpret insurance policies. The style of the case is, American National Property & Casualty Company v. Fredrich 2 Partners, LTD.
This is a case that was decided on cross motions for summary judgment. Here is some relevant information.
Fredrich owned seven commercial buildings insured against property damage under a policy issued by American National. During a severe winter storm where temperatures remained below freezing for four consecutive days, an insulated copper pipe in one of the buildings froze and ruptured, causing water damage to the building’s two interior units. At the time of the incident, one unit was occupied and heated while the other sat vacant and unheated. The pipe that froze and ruptured was located in the attic above the vacant unit.
Grand Prairie insurance lawyers who deal with auto insurance need to know how the courts treat cases dealing with “implied permission” in a car insurance situation.
A 1967, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case is still good law on this issue. The style of the case is, The Phoenix Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company.
Here is some of the relevant information.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers would want to read this case from County Court @ Law #3 in Tarrant County. The case is styled Stadium Auto, Inc. v. Loya Insurance Company and the opinion was issued by the El Paso Court of Appeals.
Here is some relevant information.
Stadium Auto, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Loya Insurance Company.
Dallas insurance attorneys need to know about this recent Federal Court case. The style of the case is Mario Santacruz v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, Inc.
Mario, “Plaintiff” claimed that he reported the damage to Allstate “Defendant”, but Defendant could not inspect the home at that time. Based on a contractor’s recommendation, Plaintiff had the roof repaired to prevent further damage. Defendant then denied coverage for the claim. Plaintiff raises causes of action against Defendant for (1) breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA“); (3) violation of Texas Insurance Code bad faith sections 541.060(a)(2)(A) and (a)(7); and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendant states that immediately after the storm that is alleged to have damaged Plaintiff’s roof, a tarp was placed on the roof to prevent further water intrusion. Plaintiff did not know whether the shingles were blown off by the wind. The next morning, Plaintiff reported the damage to Defendant and spoke to employee Almirna Martinez. Plaintiff told Martinez about the storm and about the roof being tarped and stated that he had workers at the house ready to fix the roof. Because the workers were already on site, Plaintiff requested that Defendant send someone to his home to examine the roof. Martinez informed Plaintiff that Defendant could send an adjuster to his home in a couple of days. Nevertheless, Plaintiff had the entire roof replaced that day. Thus, when Defendant’s adjuster arrived at Plaintiff’s home two days later to inspect the roof, it had already been replaced. Defendant claims that due to its inability to investigate the loss, it did not indemnify Plaintiff’s claim.
Weatherford insurance lawyers need to be able answer the above question. The problem with an answer is that, depending on the situation it is difficult to know when coverage will apply to a request for coverage for uninsured motorist protection.
In 2008, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case styled, “Nationwide Insurance Company v. Elchehimi.” This case is not particularly good news for applicants but is important for an Insurance Law Attorney to know, so as to be able to properly advise clients. This is a summary judgment case in favor of Nationwide. Here is some of the relevant information about the case.
Mohamad Elchehimi’s station wagon collided with a drive axle and attached tandem wheels that had separated from an eighteen-wheel semi-trailer truck. The unidentified truck, which was being driven in the opposite direction on a divided highway, did not stop. Momentum carried the axle-wheel assembly across the dividing median where it struck Elchehimi’s vehicle, injuring the occupants and damaging the car. Elchehimi had purchased from Nationwide a standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy, including the optional statutorily defined unidentified motorist coverage. Nationwide denied Elchehimi’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits because the impact between Elchehimi’s vehicle and the axle-wheel assembly was not “actual physical contact” with an unknown “motor vehicle” as required by the terms of the policy and the Texas Insurance Code.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog