Articles Posted in Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be know this case. It is a 1972, Houston Court of Appeals [1st District] case styled, Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in a suit for damages brought under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy. The decisive question on this appeal concerns the proper interpretation of the ‘hit-and-run automobile’ coverage included in the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.

Sarah Latham and Nora Carter, alleged that while their car was stopped in a line of traffic in obedience to the command of a police officer, a car immediately behind them was struck from the rear by a pick-up truck and propelled into their automobile. As a result of this collision they suffered personal injuries. The pick-up truck left the scene of the accident, and neither the driver nor the owner of the truck can be identified.

Dallas insurance attorneys have to understand one important provision in most auto insurance policies that provide uninsured and underinsured (UM) protection.

That important provision is the requirement that the insured party obtain written permission from the UM provider before the insured party settles with a responsible third party. This requirement to obtain written permission was upheld in the 1993, Houston Court of Appeals [1 Dist.] case, United States Fire Insurance Company v. Millard.

This case is a writ of mandamus.

Dallas insurance attorneys need to read this Corpus Christi Court of Appeals opinion regarding pain and suffering in an injury case. The opinion was issued in September of 2013, in the case styled Schaffer v. Nationwide. This was a claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

Here is some relevant background information.

Schaffer’s underinsured benefits claims against Nationwide were tried to a jury. The issue at trial was whether Lovins’s negligence was the cause of the accident and whether and what damages Schaffer suffered as a result of the accident. After the close of evidence, the jury was questioned as to whose negligence caused the accident. The jury answered that both Lovins’s and Schaffer’s negligence were proximate causes of the accident. The jury then apportioned responsibility for the accident, finding that Lovins was seventy-five percent responsible and Schaffer was twenty-five percent responsible. Finally, the jury was questioned as to damages. The jury awarded zero damages for past and future physical pain, past and future earning capacity, past and future physical impairment, and future medical expenses. The jury awarded Schaffer $257,131.41 for past medical expenses. Schaffer filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury’s zero-damages awards for physical pain, earning capacity, and physical impairment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial.

Dallas insurance lawyers should be aware of the “contact rule” as it relates to uninsured motorist coverage on an automobile. A 1972 case styled, Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Fire Insurance Co is a good example of how the “contact rule” works. This case comes from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist].

As a premise for the case, it is important to start with the statute governing this rule. The statute is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1952.104. It says that for there to be coverage under the uninsured motorist portion of a policy that “…, actual physical contact must have occurred between the motor vehicle owned or operated by the unknown person and the person or property of the insured.”

Here is some of the relevant information in Latham:

Dallas insurance lawyers need to be able to discuss this question with clients.

The Texas Insurance Code, Section 1952.104(3) says:

…..

Insurance attorneys, including those handling injury claims will be both glad and sad to know about a recent case out of the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals. The case is styled, Lilly Helene Schaffer, M.D., v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and Nationwide Property and Casualty Co. The opinion was issued in May 2013.

The bad news was that a jury awarded zero dollars to a claimant (Schaffer) for pain and suffering. The good news was that the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals said that based on the injuries and the testimony of the witnesses that the award of zero damages was against the great weight of the evidence and remanded the case on this issue.

Here is some relevant information:

Dallas insurance attorneys need to know when uninsured / underinsured coverage is available as a benefit.

The Texas Supreme Court case United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company v. Goudeau, which is an opinion issued in 2008, is a good reference.

Here are some relevant points of the case.