Interpreting An Insurance Policy

Cancelled Insurance Policy

January 1, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to know how to determine whether or not an insurance policy has been cancelled properly.

Insurance policies often contain provisions regarding cancellation.

An insurance policy may include a provision making cancellation effective upon the insurer’s mailing notice to the insured. The Houston Court of Appeals, 1st District, ruled in 1988, “The Policy or any Insuring Agreement may be cancelled by the Company by mailing to the Insured at the address shown in this Policy written notice stating when not less than fifteen days thereafter such cancellation shall be effective. The mailing of notice shall be sufficient proof of notice.”

Insurance Policy Interpretation Issues

December 16, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers need to be aware of this recent Federal District Court case. It is styled Colony Insurance Company v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company. It is an appeal from a summary judgement.

This is an action for breach of contract and associated damages against Defendant arising out of Defendant’s refusal to defend its insured, Bell Tech Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Bell Tech Training School, and Bell Tech Home Health Care.

Defendant issued a policy of liability insurance to Bell Tech, which is a licensed provider of home and community based services. The policy required that Defendant defend Bell Tech against covered claims arising out of the use of covered automobiles. The policy provides coverage as follows:

Who is “Any Person” In An Auto Insurance Policy

December 4, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys and those in Springtown, Willow Park, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to have an understanding of how to interpret an auto insurance policy.

Most auto insurance policies will have wording to the effect that there is coverage provided by the policy for “any person” using the covered auto.

An individual covered under this clause (that is, a non-family member using the covered auto) is referred to in Texas case law as an omnibus insured, covered person or an insured by definition. These types of clauses are sometimes referred to as omnibus clauses. Texas cases using it this way include cases from the Texas Supreme Court as far back as 1979. Various other Courts of Appeal have said the same in 1972, 1973, and 1994. A Dallas Court of Appeals opinion issued in 1962 said, “A named insured is the one who purchases the policy, presumably has it in his possession and is deemed to know the contents of the contract he made. On the other hand an ‘omnibus insured‘ under a comprehensive policy stand in the position of a third party beneficiary of a contract to which he is not a party, but is a stranger.” The style of the Dallas case is, Standard Acc. Ins. Co. V Employers Cas. Co. Here is some background for reference:

Uninsured Definition

November 29, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers will run across situations where the definition of “uninsured” is not clear. One of those situations was present in a recent Austin Court of Appeals case. The case is styled, Nealey Michelle Malham v. Government Employees Insurance Company.

Here is some relevant information.

Malham was injured in a motor vehicle accident in which the car in which she was a passenger was struck by a pickup truck owned by the City of Killeen and driven by a city employee while working. Malham sued the City and its employee alleging that she suffered injuries as the result of the employee’s negligent acts and that the City was vicariously liable for its employee. Malham settled her claims against the City and the employee in exchange for payment to her of $87,500. Thereafter, Malham filed a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage provision of her GEICO policy seeking to recover medical expenses related to back surgery she alleges was recommended to treat injuries sustained in the accident. In the underlying cause of action, Malham sought a declaration that the City vehicle that struck the car she was riding in was an “uninsured motor vehicle,” as that term is defined in her contract with GEICO, and that she was entitled to recover $300,000 from GEICO under the terms and conditions of the uninsured-motorist coverage contained in the policy. After a bench trial, the court rendered a final take-nothing judgment in GEICO’s favor. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its conclusion that GEICO was not liable to Malham for the payment of any uninsured motorist benefits under the terms and conditions of her GEICO policy. This appeal followed.

Insurance Lawyer Needed On This Case

November 18, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford lawyers and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Willow Park, Brock, Millsap, and other places in Parker County would respect the job performed in this case.

This is a 1984, Houston Court of Appeals [1 Dist.] opinion. The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Francis. Here are some facts:

This is a suit to establish insurance coverage and to collect from State Farm the damages recovered by Francis in a trial against an alleged non-named insured.

Insurance Attorneys And Reading The Policy

October 23, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys and those in Benbrook, Burleson, Crowley, and other parts of Tarrant County need to keep up with recent cases.

Here is one that was decided on September 2012. The style of the case is, Wendy Rutherford Branham v. State Farm Lloyds. The opinion was issued by the San Antonio Court of Appeals.

Branham sued State Farm Lloyds for failing to provide a defense and indemnity with regard to a lawsuit filed against her by Patrick and Melissa McCullough. The McCulloughs’ lawsuit was based on a contract they entered into with Branham to purchase a home from her. In their petition, the McCulloughs alleged that Branham “falsely represented that there was no (1) previous flooding into the home, (2) water penetration into the home, (3) active infestation of termites or other wood destroying insects, (4) previous termite or wood destroying insect damage repaired, and (5) termite or wood destroying insect damage needing repair.” The McCulloughs further alleged that Branham “failed to disclose to Plaintiffs the previous problems with water penetration and damage to the home and that Ms. Branham had filed a homeowners’ insurance claim for water damages sustained in the home.” The McCulloughs also claimed that although Branham “was paid on these water damage claims by her homeowners’ insurance carrier,” she “did not make proper repairs to the home or if she did, only made cosmetic repairs to conceal the damages.” The McCulloughs asserted numerous causes of action against Branham based on these allegations including: (1) fraudulent concealment for making affirmative false representations or omitting to disclose material facts, alleging the representations and concealments were “made with knowledge of the real facts;” (2) breach of contract for “failing to disclose the home’s previous water penetration problems and damages, thereby, fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs into entering the contract;” (3) negligence for failing to properly disclose the condition of the home; (4) DTPA violations; (5) negligent misrepresentations by supplying false information and not exercising reasonable care or competence in communicating the information; (6) common-law fraud and fraud by non-disclosure; and (7) violation of section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code for making misrepresentations in a transaction involving real estate that Branham knew were false.

Insurance Lawyers And Uninsured Coverage

October 14, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie lawyers and those in Irving, Arlington, Dencanville, De Soto, Cedar Hill, Mansfield and other places in DFW need to now about this opinion.

The opinion is a case out of the San Antonio Court of Appeals. It is styled, Ruben L. Briones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Here is some relevant information.

This is an appeal from a take nothing summary judgment. This court ruled that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment because there was a genuine issue as to material facts, namely whether the tractor-trailer in which Briones was a passenger at the time of his injuries was furnished or available for his regular use, as that term is used in his policy of insurance.

Automobile Coverage

October 7, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers and those in Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, Irving, and others areas in the metroplex need to be aware of this case.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1972, that is still good law. The style of the case is, Snyder v. Allstate Insurance Company. Here is some relevant information.

The controversy here is between Allstate, which issued an automobile insurance policy to J.B. Rhodes, and Fidelity and Casualty Company, which issued a policy to John Snyder, as to which insurer was obligated to defend Robert Snyder (minor son of John Snyder) and pay damages arising out of the collision of an automobile in the possession of and used by Darla Rhodes (minor daughter of J.B. Rhodes) while being driven by Robert Snyder with Darla Rhodes as a passenger.

Declaratory Judgments For Insurance Cases

September 25, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers and those in Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Hudson Oaks, Cool, Millsap, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to have a good understanding of declaratory judgment actions.

The Austin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1998, that was a declaratory judgment action. The style of the case is, Calderon v. Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas.

Here is the relevant information:

Insurance Policy Technicalities

September 8, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance law attorneys and those in Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Grapevine, and other places in Tarrant County would be helping their clients by being aware of the case discussed here.

The case is an opinion issued by the Texas Supreme Court in 1984. The style of the case is, Jo Beth Warren Puckett et al. v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. Here are some of the relevant facts and information of the case.

The case is a declaratory judgment action. The question presented is whether an insured’s failure to have his plane inspected need be the cause of an accident in order for the insurance company to avoid liability under an aviation policy for damages resulting from that accident. The trial court held that causation was not required and rendered summary judgment for, U.S. Fire Insurance Company. The court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of both courts and remanded the cause for trial.