Interpreting An Insurance Policy

Life Insurance – Persons Entitled To Benefits

April 27, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to know about the case issued by the Eastland Court of Appeals in 1981. Here is some relevant information:

Pilot Life Insurance Company sought a judgment declaring that it had no duty to pay life insurance proceeds to Lawrence A. Koch because of the death of his wife. Pilot Life had issued a policy of group insurance to Koch’s employer. The policy afforded life insurance coverage for employees and their eligible dependents. Eligible dependents were defined to include “your husband or wife, unless you were legally separated or divorced.” Pilot Life alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were legally separated on the date of her death. Koch filed a counterclaim seeking the policy proceeds of $5,000, 12% penalty and reasonable attorney’s fees. The jury found that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated at the time of her death. Although that separation was pursuant to a “temporary” court order entered in the pending divorce proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Koch, the trial court entered judgment for Koch notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that under Texas law there is no status of legal separation of a husband and wife before the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Pilot Life Insurance Company appealed and lost his appeal.

Pilot Life contends that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence established that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated pursuant to an order of a district court and thus they were legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death; and, were, therefore, legally separated within the contemplation of the policy.

Life Insurance Policy Effective Date

April 20, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys in Parker County and elsewhere need to have an understanding of the issues coming up surrounding the effective date of a life insurance policy.

A 1980, Texas Supreme Court opinion gives some guidance on this issue. The style of the case is Life Insurance Company of the Southwest v. Overstreet and results from a dispute in Fort Worth.

Here is some relevant information:

Beneficiary Under A Fire Policy

April 16, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys may run across a situation in a recent Waco Court of Appeals opinion. Here is what it tells us.

The dispute in this case centers on who is entitled to insurance proceeds associated with a house that burned down. Taylor claims that she is entitled to the proceeds because, she and Lough lived together in a house from 2005 to 2007. Apparently, Taylor continued living in the house after the couple broke up and Lough moved out in mid-2007.

In any event, on March 1, 2007, Lough, an “unmarried person,” executed a homestead lien contract and deed of trust with the Bank for a loan secured by the property at issue in this case–the proceeds of which, according to Taylor, were used to buy land to move Lough’s feed store. The contract and deed of trust specifically stated that Lough granted the Bank a lien . . . “in and to the following described real property, together with all improvements, all proceeds (including without limitation premium refunds) of each policy of insurance relating to any of the improvements, or the Real Property . . . .”

Insurance Policy Definitions and Damages

April 9, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Praire insurance law lawyers need to understand some of the definitions and interpretations of coverages in an auto insurance policy.

So, what are some of the basic exclusions to collision and comprehensive coverage? To start, most policy’s exclude loss due to “wear and tear.” An insurance policy is not a maintenance policy. It is intended to provide coverage for the unexpected and unforeseen. This was stated in the 1952, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Republic Casualty v. Mayfield, and is still good law. A policy would also exclude damage due to freezing, mechanical or electrical break down or failure, or road damage to tires.

Here is how damages are handled or calculated:

Insurance Lawyer And Policy Interpretation

April 6, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to read this opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued on February 2013. The style of the case is, Canal Indemnity Company v. Rapid Logistics, Incorporated.

Here is some relevant information:

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action involving an insurance coverage dispute. Canal Indemnity Company filed suit against its insured, Rapid Logistics, Inc. a trucking company. Canal argued that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Rapid Logistics in a state court negligence lawsuit that stemmed from a tractor-trailer accident. The district court granted Canal’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Canal had no duty to defend or indemnify Rapid Logistics with respect to the state court action. Finding no reversible error, this court affirmed.

Replacement Costs

March 24, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys need to know the difference between “replacement cost” and “actual cash value” in an insurance policy.

The 1998, Austin Court of Appeals opinion in the case styled, “Great Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lewis” lends some insight into the differences.

Here is some relevant information:

“All Risk” Insurance Policies

March 23, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers have to understand how the courts look at “all risk” insurance policies.

Property insurance may be issued on either:

A. An “all risk” basis, meaning that all risks of physical loss are covered except for excluded perils; or B. A “named peril” basis, meaning that physical loss is covered for certain causes only.

Insurance Policies And Insurable Interests

March 21, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Irving, Arlington, Mansfield, and other places in the DFW area to know this case.

The case is styled, Jones v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Company. It is a 1993, Dallas Court of Appeals opinion.

Here is some relevant information:

Property Insurance – Insurable Interest

March 19, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance attorneys need to understand the idea of “insurable interest” as it relates to property insurance claims.

A person or entity must have an insurable interest in the insured property to recover under an insurance policy. This was clearly stated in the 1993, Dallas Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Company.

An insurable interest exists when the insured derives a pecuniary benefit or advantage by the preservation and continued existence of the property or would sustain a pecuniary loss from its destruction.

Property Insurance

March 17, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to understand the different types of property insurance to be able to properly advise clients.

As stated by a 1972, Dallas Court of Appeals case, property insurance involves the indemnification of the insured by the insurance company for the loss of, or damage to, identifiable property.

These property insurance policies are intended solely to indemnify the insured for their actual monetary loss.