Articles Posted in Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage

Most insurance lawyers already know the law regarding uninsured (UIM) claims and extra-contractual damages.  A Dallas Court of Appeals opinion restates it.  The opinion is, In Re Geico Advantage Insurance Company and Celia Stefl.

This is a mandamus proceeding wherein the real party in interest, Marion Thorpe, sued Geico and Stefl to recover uninsured motorist benefits and extra-contractual damages following a motor vehicle accident.  The trial court denied Geico’s request for a bifurcated trial and this mandamus action resulted.

Mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to sever and abate extra-contractual claims in an UIM case.

Lawyers who handle uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM) cases need to read this 2016, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals opinion.  The case is styled, In re Luna.

In this UM case, the Court conditionally granted a petition for mandamus where the insured sought to obtain the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative.   In this case, Luna originally sued Armando Antunez, the intoxicated, uninsured motorist who caused Luna to sustain severe injuries.    Luna also sued State Farm for UM benefits and for extra-contractual claims.  The Court severed all three cases from each other and abated the UM and the extra-contractual case during the case against Antunez. 

During the original case filed against Antunez, Luna requested the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative.   The trial court denied that request, and Luna did not challenge the Court’s decision in the case against Antunez.    Eventually, Luna took a default judgment against Antunez and began prosecuting the UM case against State Farm.  

An insurance law lawyer might be asked how uninsured motorist coverage works with workers compensation insurance.  One way that it works is explained in a 2016, Austin Court of Appeals opinion.  The opinion is styled Soledad v. Texas Farm Bureau.

Soledad was a passenger in a vehicle owned and leased by her employer, Schneider National Carriers, when it was involved in a single vehicle accident.  Jeff Noe, a fellow employee, was driving the vehicle.  Both were working with Schneider at the time of the accident, which was the result of Noe’s negligence.  Soledad suffered injuries.

Soledad had uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on her own personal vehicle with Farm Bureau.  Schneider had workers compensation insurance on its employees and also had liability coverage on its vehicles.

Attorneys handling uninsured / underinsured claims will find this article from the Claims Journal interesting.  The law discussed in the article is Missouri law but Texas law is similar and the results would probably be the same in Texas.  The article is titled, UIM Endorsement Doesn’t Cover Worker Injured While Not Occupying Employer’s Truck.

On October 6, 2016 the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, applying Missouri law, granted a summary judgment for Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America, after holding that the injured plaintiff was not insured by Travelers because at the time of the accident he was not occupying the vehicle that struck him.  The decision is titled Spiller v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America.

The facts were straightforward.  Plaintiff was employed by a repaving contractor and was responsible for caulking  along a 12 mile stretch of a four lane highway.  While plaintiff was working on the roadway, he was followed by a truck with a flashing arrow, warning traffic approaching from the rear to move to the left lane because there was construction work in the right lane.  After several hours of work one day, the arrow board attached to the truck was struck from behind by another vehicle driven by one Paul Owens.  The force of the collision caused the truck following plaintiff to strike and injure him.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in October 2016, that needs to be read by Dallas and Fort Worth insurance lawyers.  It is styled, Van K. Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

This is a summary judgment appeal.

Martin’s son was involved in an auto accident with State Farm insured, Jeffery Lonsdale.  No one was injured in the accident, but Lonsdale filed a claim for property damage, which was submitted to State Farm under Part A of Martin’s liability policy.  Martin filed a claim for property damage to his vehicle under Part D of the policy.  State Farm settled Lonsdale’s claim and provided coverage for the property damage to Martin’s vehicle.  Martin alleges that State Farm unreasonably concluded his son was primarily responsible for the accident without interviewing Martin’s son or other witnesses in the car.  Martin alleges he paid the deductible to have his vehicle repaired and paid “incremental semi-annual premiums” related to the accident.

Garner and Brock insurance lawyers who handle underinsured claims need to read this opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The opinion is styled, Gaspar Gonzalez v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company.

Gonzalez sued Philadelphia for underinsured motorist benefits after Philadelphia refused to pay the benefits because Gonzalez failed to follow the requirements in an endorsement to his policy.  The endorsement expressly excluded “any claim settled without Philadelphia’s consent,” unless the “insured” gave Philadelphia “prompt written notice” of any “tentative settlement” and Philadephia “advanced payment to the ‘insured’ in an amount equal to the tentative settlement within 30 days after receipt of notification.”

Gonzalez had settled the case with the responsible third party for their limits of $25,000 prior to Gonzalez seeking underinsured benefits from Philadelphia.  Gonzalez filed suit against Philadelphia for breach of the insurance contract in State Court and Philadelphia removed the case to Federal Court.

Lawsuits involving claims for uninsured/underinsured (UIM) benefits are in their own little category for the way the courts handle them.  This is illustrated in a 2016, Tyler Court of Appeals opinion titled, In Re: AAA Texas County Mutual Insurance Company.

Vehicles driven by Thomas Jackson and Patricia Tompkins collided.  Jackson filed a claim for UIM benefits with AAA.  He later filed a lawsuit against AAA for breach of the insurance contract, violations of the DTPA, the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.  AAA filed a motion to sever and abate the extracontractual claims and the just denied the motion.  This Mandamus action resulted.

AAA argued the judge abused his discretion in not allowing the case to be severed and abated.

Insurance lawyers in Dallas and Fort Worth areas will often deal with uninsured motorist situations. Some of the situations are strange and the question becomes whether or not the uninsured motorist statutes in the Texas Insurance Code and actual provisions of policies apply to the fact situation being confronted. A 1999, Texas Supreme Court case deals with one strange situation. The style of the case is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Whitehead.

In this case the Court considered whether an uninsured motorist policy provision covers damages sustained by the insured’s survivors when a passenger in another vehicle shot and killed the insured while he was driving his vehicle. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the policy provided uninsured motorist benefits. The court of appeals affirmed. This Court reversed and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.

The underlying facts are largely undisputed. Kevin Hawkins was riding in a van driven by his brother, Howard Hawkins, Jr., when he saw a passenger in a pickup truck with whom he believed he had quarreled earlier in the evening. As the van pulled alongside the pickup, Kevin pointed a pistol at the pickup and fired several shots. Brent Taylor, the driver of the pickup, was shot and killed. The pickup then went out of control and struck a bridge stanchion. Starlette Whitehead, a passenger in the pickup, was injured in the crash.

Weatherford lawyers who sue insurance companies need to know how to stay out of Federal Court if they want to properly represent their clients. It cannot always be done but understanding the law in these matters is important. A U.S. Northern District, Dallas Division case is good reading on this issue. The style of the case is, Felecia D.Davis v. Eduardo Vargas Reyes, et al.

Davis filed suit in State Court against Vargas for injuries arising from a car wreck. After Davis settled with Vargas, she amended her petition and added Amica Mutual Insurance (Amica) to this lawsuit, seeking underinsured benefits and she sued the Amica adjuster, Carolina Glenn. She then filed a second amended petition alleging that her claims against Vargas had been settled. Amica properly removed the case and alleged in its removal that Vargas, a Texas citizen, should be disregarded because the claim against him had already been settled. Amica is a citizen of Rhode Island and thus there was diversity of citizenship allowing the removal.

Davis contended that even though she had settled with Vargas, diversity of citizenship is determined as of the time she originally filed suit in State Court, meaning Vargas’ Texas citizenship precludes removal. Davis also contended the State Court had never entered an order dismissing the claims against Vargas so Vargas’ Texas citizenship cannot be disregarded.