Insurance Lawyers in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Lake Worth, Saginaw, Benbrook, Burleson, and other places in Tarrant County would want to be aware of this older case.
The case was decided in 1967, by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, William A. Cockrum v. Travelers Indemnity Company.
This is an appeal by Cockrum from a take nothing summary judgment in favor of Travelers in a suit to recover medical payments under a family automobile insurance policy.
For attorneys in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Tarrant County, interpreting insurance policies can be difficult. Even experienced Insurance Law Attorneys will often times disagree on what the wording in a policy means as it relates to the facts of a claim.
Here is a case wherein “medical payments coverage” is being interpreted in order to determine how it is paid under the given facts.
This case is a 1973, case out of the Waco Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Haskell M Dhane et ux. v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.
Weatherford attorneys, and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Hudson Park, Willow Park, Millsap, Brock, Cool, and other places in Parker County should be interested in this case.
The style of the case is, Foust v. Ranger Insurance Company. The opinion was issued by the San Antonio Court of Appeals in 1998. Here are some facts:
In 1994, Foust farmed various tracts of land which abutted land owned and farmed by Walters Farms. In May 1994, Walters Farms retained Lindeman to crop dust the milo crop on its property. The herbicide used is dangerous to cotton. Some of the herbicide drifted from the target area on to various tracts of land being farmed by Foust for cotton, causing severe damage to Foust’s cotton crop. Foust sued Lindeman, Walter Farms, and the manufacturer of the herbicide for loss of income suffered as a result of the damaged cotton crop.
Grand Prairie attorneys and attorneys in Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, Dallas, and anywhere else in Texas would need to have a basic understanding of automobile insurance policies. The following case helps someone to understand how one part of an auto policy is interpreted.
The style of the case is, Wesley Howard Williams v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company. This is a case that was decided in 1963, by the San Antonio Court of Appeals.
This case tells us that “medical payments coverage” is based upon contract and not on the insured’s negligence.
A person in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, and other places in Parker County who has a homeowners policy would find the following case of interest.
At one time or another a house or residence is going to be vacant for a period of time. Maybe it is when remodeling is being done, or if the property is a rental, there may be a vacancy when a tenant moves out. There may be a temporary vacancy when a house is up for sale. There can be many situations where a structure is temporarily vacant. What most people do not realize is that almost all policies have vacancy exclusions written into the policy. The insured customer discovers this only when they are making a claim and the adjuster assigned the claim determines the vacancy exclusion is applicable and denies the claim for benefits.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion recently that dealt with the vacancy clause exclusion in a homeowners policy. The style of the case is, Columbia Lloyds Insurance Company v. Robert Mao and Vachana Mao.
Residents of Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Arlington, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Texas need to be able to read and understand the papers related to life insurance policies. The following case is a good example of this.
The case was decided in 2004, and was an opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Royal MacCabees Life Insurance Company v. Vicki James and The City of Mesquite. Here are some of the facts.
Donnie James was a police officer for the City of Mesquite who died on June 5, 1998. This dispute arises out of a group life insurance policy issued by Royal for City of Mesquite employees. Under the policy, an eligible employee could elect coverage in incremental amounts up to $100,000. It is contended that Donnie James was eligible for, elected, and paid premiums for $100,000 in benefits. There is no dispute as to the first $50,000 in benefits. Royal paid $50,000 after James death. The lawsuit arose out of Royal’s denial of the additional $50,000 in benefits for which Donnie James had paid premiums (through payroll deductions) for four years and ten months prior to his death.
Insureds in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Saginaw, Southlake, Roanoke, Keller, North Richland Hills, and other places in Tarrant County need to understand what their life insurance policy says.
The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2008, that is on point. The style of the case is, Quihong Liu v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company.
Here is some of the factual and procedural background.
It is hard for someone in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Willow Park, or any where else in Parker County to understand a life insurance policy. Here is a case that shows how some are interpreted.
The style of the case is Assurity Life Insurance Company v. Varsha Grogan, et al. This is a case decided by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007. It is an appeal from the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Grogan entitling her to proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy. Assurity argued that, under Texas law, the policy issued to Mr. Grogan never took effect because it contained a “good health” condition precedent to its effectiveness; and that Mr. Grogan was not in good health on the date relevant to the policy’s effectiveness.
On April 4, 2002, Mr. Grogan submitted to Assurity an application for $1,000,000 of whole life insurance on his own life. This application did not progress and was later closed. On August 8, 2002, Mr. Grogan sent Assurity a letter reaffirming his desire to apply for the policy.
People in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Millsap, Brock, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, and other places in Parker County and Texas need to have an understanding of who is covered in their insurance policies.
The Houston Court of Appeals, 1st District, issued an opinion in 1998, dealing with this issue. The style of the case is, Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Commercial Union Insurance Corporation. Here are some of the facts of the case.
Sears and Weingarten Realty, Inc. entered into a lease agreement whereby Sears leased space in a shopping center owned by Weingarten. Under the terms of the lease, Weingarten was required to maintain comprehensive public liability insurance protecting Sears against liability for injury to persons or property occurring in common areas of the shopping center. Weingarten purchased a commercial general liability policy from Commercial Union Insurance Corporation. The first page of the policy listed the “Named Insured” as Weingarten Realty Investors, et al. An endorsement on the second page included Weingarten Realty Investors, Weingarten Properties, Inc., WRI Holdings, Inc. and “all subsidiary, affiliated, associated, or allied companies, corporations, firms, organizations, including partnership and joint ventures as are now or hereafter are constituted for which the Named Insured has the responsibility of placing insurance and for which the other insurance is not otherwise more specifically provided.”
People in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Crowley, Burleson, Benbrook, Joshua, and other places in Tarrant and Johnson County need to understand the importance of notifying the company quickly when a potential claim arises.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2007 dealing with “notice” to an insurance company about a claim. This one is a little unusual but still illustrates the importance of notifying the insurance company about potential claims as soon as possible. The style of the case is, Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Texas Lloyd’s v. John Hunter and Wife, Carmen Hunter. Here are some facts.
In the summer of 2002, the Hunters noticed a strange smell in their home. The Hunter’s HO-B homeowner’s policy with the Allstate companies expired in October 2002, and the Hunters replace it with an HO-A homeowner’s policy. The strange smell persisted, and in December 2002, the Hunters hired a company to conduct air sampling testing in their home. The results revealed no elevated mold content in the air and offered no explanation for the smell. In February 2003, a general contractor inspected the Hunter’s home. When the contractor entered the crawlspace under the home, he saw water damage and mold. The Hunters testified that this was the first time they knew of the mold damage or that the source of the odor that they had been smelling was mold. They made a claim with Allstate two days later.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog