Articles Posted in Value of Claim

Fort Worth Insurance Lawyers and those in Saginaw, North Richland Hills, Benbrook, Lake Worth, Arlington, and other parts of Tarrant County need to know the claims that allow for recovery of “loss of use.”

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1988, that gives some insight into this element of loss and the types of cases where it is recoverable. The style of the case is, Chemical Express Carriers, Inc. v. French. Here is some background.

The claim arises out of a situation where some airport fuel was contaminated. French and others named in the lawsuit were the operators of the facility where the contamination occurred. The trial court ruled in favor of French and this appeal followed.

Someone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or anywhere else in Texas may wonder how “mental anguish” works as a claim. Here is some insight into that how it works in Texas.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1997, in the case styled “The City of Tyler v. Adeline Likes.” Attorneys for the City of Tyler and attorneys for Likes made arguments for their respective clients. Here is some background.

The primary issue was whether Likes could recover for mental anguish resulting from a flood. There were other issues in the case that will not be addressed.

Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, Crowley, Benbrook, Burleson, Cresson, and other Tarrant County residents would naturally wonder what the value of their claim is when their insurance company violates the law in the way they treat one of their customers. In other words, what will it cost the insurance company.

The most common actual damages when an insurance company treats somebody wrong are the actual policy benefits themselves. In certain cases under the Insurance code, the amount of policy benefits wrongfully withheld is an element of damages caused by the insurance company’s conduct. This is often held to be the case as a matter of law. This was stated in the Texas Supreme Court case, Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, decided in 1988. The Supreme Court in the Vail case rejected the insurance company arguement that damages for an unfair settlement practice had to be something more than the amounts due under the policy. The court held that damages for a wrongful refusal to pay are at least equal to the policy benefits, as a matter of law. The reasoning of the court was:

The fact that the Vails have a breach of contract action against Texas Farm does not preclude a cause of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and what is now Section 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. Both the DTPA and the Insurance Code provide that the statutory remedies are cumulative of other remedies. They said it was well settled that persons without insurance are allowed to recover based on false representations of coverage, and that an insurance company may be liable for damages to the insured for its refusal or failure to settle third-party claims. It would not be right to bar an insured person who has paid premiums and is entitled to protection under the policy of insurance from recovering damages when the insurance company wrongfully refuses to pay a valid claim. The court stated that “Such a result would be in contravention of the remedial purposes of the DTPA and the Insurance Code.”

Solutions – that is what someone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Bedford, Hurst, Euless, North Richland Hills, Keller, Colleyville, Grapevine, and other Tarrant County cities want when they are having problems with their insurance company.

One thing that can be recovered in an insurance claim situation is “actual damages.” Actual damages are the real damages someone suffers. Actual damages are also called compensatory damages. Compensation paid for harm, loss or injury suffered by an aggrieved party due to an act or a failure to act by another party/parties. Actual damages can be measured. For example, ‘A’ suffers a loss of income and or wages due to injuries that resulted in A’s unemployment. They also include medical expenses and specific losses due to breach of contract, like in insurance cases where a house burns down or a car suffers hail damage. It is usually amounts that can be easily proven. Examples that are not so easy to prove are, pain and suffering, impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of comfort.

The Texas Supreme Court, in 1997, set out the following principles that govern recovery of “actual damages” under the similar language that existed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act – that is that the same analysis should apply to the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.152(a)(1). The relevant case was, Arthur Andersen & Company v. Perry Equipment Corporation.

Claimants in Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Mansfield, Irving, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Keller, Azle, Aledo, and any other place in Texas would naturally wonder about the value of any claim they may have against an insurance company. Sometimes the valuation is very simple. An example would be where your car is a total loss and it is insured for $10,000 and you and the insurance company agree it is worth $10,000. You look at your policy and determine that you have a $500 deductible and thus you are entitled to a payout of $9,500.

If only they were all so simple.

Here is an actual case example that is less logical. On February 4, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo issued an opinion styled, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company v. Natividad Delgado.