Articles Posted in Life Insurance

Life Insurance Lawyers know that just as there may be disputes whether coverage took effect before the insured died, there may also be disagreements over whether coverage terminated before the insured’s death.  This is illustrated in a 1979, Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion styled, Leach v. Eureka Life Ins. Co. of America.

This case is an appeal from a court ruling against Leach after she filed suit against Eureka.  The life insurance policy at issue was a Credit Life Insurance policy.  The policy was to pay the remaining balance of a loan in the event the insured died before the loan was paid or September 13, 1977.  The insured, Tommy Leach, was killed in a car accident at or around September 13, 1977.  There were no witnesses.  The death certificate for Tommy Leach shows the time of injury and death as 12:45 a.m., September 14, 1977.

The insurance company alleged that Leach was killed September 14, 1977.

Life insurance attorneys will run into a surprising amount of cases that are unique unto themselves.  This case is that way.  The Facts are long but need to be understood to understand how the Court ruled the way it did.  This is a 1959 opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  It is styled, Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Hall.

Ms. Hall sued Republic after Republic denied her claim for life insurance benefits for the stated reason that the contract was never completed.

There has not been any material dispute about the facts, which in substance are as follows: The deceased, who resided in California but was President of Weatherford Manufacturing Co., of Weatherford, Texas, made application at Weatherford in the latter part of March 1949, for a twenty-year-payment type of policy in the amount of $20,000 through a Mr. Coder, the local soliciting agent of petitioner, on petitioner’s usual printed form, which Mr. Hall, of course, signed.  At that time, Mr. Hall was 36 years old, and was evidently understood by himself and the soliciting agent to be in some undetermined degree “overweight” from a life-underwriting standpoint, so as probably to require of him a premium higher in some unknown amount than that of approximately $640 per year, which was normal for an applicant of his age.  The agent testified that he told Mr. Hall, “I didn’t know what the rate would be; that it would have to be a special rate case.” At the same time he testified as follows:  “Q. What did George (Mr. Hall) tell you in response to that; he told you he wanted the insurance?  A. Yes; I told him that was what we could get.”  Mr. Hall’s secretary was allowed to testify that on the date of the application and in the presence of the agent, Mr. Hall told her that he was going on a trip to the West, wanted insurance and that “when these policies came in I was to put them in the safe.”  (A “group” policy was also involved in the negotiations but not in this suit.)  Previously to these transactions, Mr. Hall had been negotiating with another company than petitioner and had been quoted an annual premium rate of $40 per $1,000 of insurance but had evidently gone no further with these negotiations, and told petitioner’s agent, “I want you to beat that other man’s premium.”  It was also understood between Mr. Hall and the petitioner’s agent that, Hall being a licensed airplane pilot, accustomed to fly the plane of his company on business trips, the insurance would include coverage for death suffered in any such flight, the additional premium for such coverage being an amount evidently not subject to variation and Hall having executed contemporaneously with his application the usual company form questionnaire describing his flying activities.

Here is a life insurance claim denial that is interesting factually and legally, and a must read for lawyers handling life insurance claims.  This is a case handled by the Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys.

The opinion is a December 10, 2021, summary judgment ruling from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  It is styled, Pham v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company.  Johnny Pham sues in his own right and Kim Van Bui sues on behalf of minor children SKB and BDB.

This case has been presented in multiple blogs with this being the last.

Here is a life insurance claim denial that is interesting factually and legally, and a must read for lawyers handling life insurance claims.  This is a case handled by the Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys.

The opinion is a December 10, 2021, summary judgment ruling from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  It is styled, Pham v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company.  Johnny Pham sues in his own right and Kim Van Bui sues on behalf of minor children SKB and BDB.

This case will be presented in multiple blogs.

Here is a life insurance claim denial that is interesting factually and legally, and a must read for lawyers handling life insurance claims.  This is a case handled by the Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys.

The opinion is a December 10, 2021, summary judgment ruling from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  It is styled, Pham v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company.  Johnny Pham sues in his own right and Kim Van Bui sues on behalf of minor children SKB and BDB.

This case will be presented in multiple blogs.

Here is a life insurance claim denial that is interesting factually and legally, and a must read for attorneys handling life insurance claims.  This is a case handled by the Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys.

This is a December 10, 2021, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  It is styled, Pham v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company.  Johnny Pham sues in his own right and Kim Van Bui sues on behalf of minor children SKB and BDB.

This case will be presented in multiple blogs.

Life Insurance lawyers have to know this case.  It is an opinion that has been discussed here recently.  The opinion was issued on November 10, 2021, by the United States Fifth Circuit and is styled, Mirna Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Company.

Saul Guzman died after suffering a seizure at age 28.  Mirna, his wife and beneficiary file to collect on a life insurance policy issued by Allstate.  Allstate denied the claim.  A lawsuit was filed and the local district court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate.  This Court reverses that decision.

When applying for the insurance policy, Saul disclosed his history of seizures but denied using tobacco or nicotine products.

Life insurance claims denial attorneys will rarely see this situation, but it is worth knowing about.  This is a 1987, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, Davidson v. Great National Life Insurance Company.

Davidson is the beneficiary of life insurance policy insuring Dauod Alquassab.  Davidson filed suit after Great National denied the claim for benefits.  The trial trial found in favor of Davidson.  An appeal resulted in the verdict being reversed.  This Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and remanded the case for further consideration.

In May 1980, a man identifying himself as Dauod Alquassab applied for an insurance policy on his life from Great National.  Although unknown to Great National at the time of the application, Alquassab had previously used the names of David Kassab and David Kay; he was convicted of felony fraud charges under each previous name.  Alquassab named Ilan Eiger, his partner in a real estate business, as the beneficiary when Great National issued the policy in June 1980.  In September 1980, Alquassab changed the beneficiary designation from Eiger to Phyllis Davidson, his former wife from whom he was divorced in 1968.  Alquassab then traveled to Tel Aviv, Israel, in February 1981.  Prior to his departure, the record indicates that Alquassab allegedly defrauded First City Bank in Houston, of approximately $1.5 million dollars, and committed additional acts of fraud upon other banking institutions.

Here is an opinion from the United States Fifth Circuit that deals with life insurance.  The opinion is styled, Mirna Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Company.

This is an appeal from the District Court wherein the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate.  This is a review of how the Court reviews the granting of a summary judgment.

Here is some basic background in the case:

Life insurance through an employer is common.  Most people do not realize the differences between regular life insurance that is purchased from a local agent or through a mail solicitation and life insurance that is purchased through their employer.  The major difference is that life insurance purchased through their employer is often governed by the Employee Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which is a life insurance plan governed by federal rules versus state rules otherwise.

Here is a case that is worth reading for anybody dealing with ERISA.  It is a 2021, opinion from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It is styled, Erica Talasek v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.

Ben Talasek had purchased life insurance through his employer.  He died and a claim was made by Erica for benefits.  The actual facts of the case and the procedural history can be read in the opinion.