Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Compliance With Insurance Policy Provisions

June 13, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

This Eastern District, Sherman Division opinion is good reading for how the courts look at an insured’s responsibility to comply with policy provisions in an insurance contract. The opinion is styled, Tommy Wilson v. Allstate Insurance Company.

Wilson made a claim for damages to his home after wind and hail storm damage. A loss suit resulted based on allegations that Allstate grossly underestimated the amount of damage to the property. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss based on Wilson not having complied with the policy provision requiring he submit a sworn proof of loss 91 days before filing suit.

The relevant portion of the policy reads:

Suing The Insurance Adjuster

June 11, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most Llano insurance lawyers would prefer to stay out of Federal Court because Federal Courts tend to be more favorable to insurance companies. Suing the insurance company adjuster is one way to stay out of Federal Court. A Western District, Waco Division opinion shows one way to NOT sue the adjuster. The opinion is styled, Spring Street Apts Waco, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and Crawford & Company.

Spring Street suffered hail and wind damage. Their insurance coverage was with Philadelphia, who hired Crawford to investigate the claim.

Spring Street filed suit in State Court for DTPA violations and Insurance Code violations and Philadelphia promptly had the case removed to Federal Court based on lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, claiming that Crawford was improperly joined in the lawsuit. Crawford filed a Rule 12(h)(2) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Hail Claims – Cosmetic Damage

June 10, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Hamilton insurance lawyers need to read this opinion from the Western District, Waco Division, Federal Courts. It is styled, Stephen Hahn v. United Fire and Casualty Company.

Hahn filed this lawsuit against United Fire after United Fire refused to pay a hail damage claim submitted to them by Hahn. United Fire refused based on their assertion that the damage is cosmetic only and does not jeopardize the integrity of the roof and is an exclusion not covered under the policy. United Fire filed a motion for summary judgment in an effort to get the case resolved in their favor.

United Fire’s exclusion says:

Hail Damage – Segregating Covered And Uncovered Damages

June 8, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

For Hail Claims layers, the Western District, Waco Division, issued an opinion in April 2017, that needs to be read. It is styled, Stephen Hahn v. United Fire and Casualty Company.

Hahn suffered hail damage to his property after a recent hail storm and made a claim for damages. United Fire denied the claim based on their assertion that the damage was not segregated from the damage occurring in the recent storm and prior damage. They also denied based on the damage only being cosmetic in nature.

Hahn filed suit for breach of contract and insurance code violations and United Fire eventually filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to have the case dismissed.

Legislation And Insurance Companies

June 6, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Hopefully Texas Hill Country insurance lawyers and their clients read this article in the Austin American Statesman, and reacted to it by calling their respective representatives. The article is titled, Commentary: ‘Blue Tarp Bills’ Threaten Texas Property Owners.

Your property rights are under assault at the Texas Capital. Insurance lobbyists and their allies at the self-styled “Texans for Lawsuit Reform” are pushing legislation that will mean insurance companies pay you as little as late as possible for claims.

House Bill 1774 and Senate Bill 10, better known as the “blue tarp bills,” strengthen the hand of insurance companies in property-claims disputes. The end result is homes, businesses, schools and churches will be blanketed in blue tarps after storms when they’re cheated out of their policy benefits.

Federal Plans – Subrogation

June 4, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers understand subrogation policies. Courthouse News Service published an article on April 18, 2017, that should be read. It is titled, Justices Back Insurance Subrogation Policies.

Reinforcing insurance subrogation provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court was unanimous Tuesday that federal regulations clearly put state laws second to such policies.

The case stems from efforts by Missouri postal worker Jodie Nevils to keep the proceeds of his car-crash settlement out of the hands of the insurance company that already paid him $6,000.00.

Bad Faith – Texas Rules

June 3, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Bad Faith insurance lawyers got a favorable ruling in the Texas Supreme Court recently. This is discussed in an article published by the Claims Journal. It is titled, Texas High Court Establishes Clear Rules For Breach Of Contract, Bad Faith Suits Against Insurers.

In an effort to clear up confusion as a result of past decisions, the Texas Supreme Court announced five rules that “address the relationship between contract claims under an insurance policy and tort claims under the Insurance Code.”

The clarification was part of an opinion issued earlier this month. The case is styled USAA Texas Lloyd’s Company v. Gail Menchaca.

Family Member Exclusions – Where The Family Member Lives

June 1, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells attorneys who handle underinsured motorist claims need to read this Austin Court of Appeals opinion. It is styled, Johnson v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company.

This suit arises from a suit brought by Jerry Johnson seeking declarations construing the terms of two insurance policies following an automobile accident in which Jerry’s son, Jacob, was injured while Jerry was driving.

In 2008, Jerry and Jacob were traveling in Colorado in a rented car driven by Jerry when Jerry caused an accident which severely injured his 11 year old son. Jacob. Jacob lived with his parents at the time of the accident and remained in the home until May 29, 2015, when he permanently moved out of the residence. Jerry had an auto policy and an umbrella policy with State Farm. The auto policy contains a provision, the “family member exclusion,” that excludes from liability coverage bodily injury to “any family member, except to the extent of the minimum limits of Liability Coverage required” by the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, which was $25,000 at the time. “Family member” is defined as “a person who is a resident of your household and related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption.” The umbrella policy has a similar provision. Jerry sought coverage under both policies. State Farm refused coverage beyond the $25,000.00 minimum.

Life Insurance And Divorce

May 30, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life Insurance Lawyers in the Dallas and Fort Worth area will see situations on a regular basis where the person who died had a life insurance policy naming the other spouse as the beneficiary – but there was a divorce later and the policy naming the ex-spouse was never changed. What to do? This is discuss in a National Review article titled, Divorces Can Be Messy … For Life Insurers.

Divorces are often characterized as “messy” for good reason. While divorce proceedings can prove particularly challenging for the individual participants, they can also pose challenges for those adjudicating competing life insurance claims when the decedent insured’s ex-spouse, who has been designated as a policy beneficiary, claims a right to the death benefit instead of the surviving spouse, the insured’s estate or a secondary beneficiary.

Divorce-related life insurance disputes can end up before courts in litigation over the decedent insured’s estate, in litigation brought by a purported beneficiary against the insurance company, or in inter-pleader actions filed by the insurer. In an inter-pleader action, the insurance company files a petition with the court seeking an order determining, for instance, which spouse – surviving or ex – is entitled to the decedent insured’s policy proceeds following a divorce.

What If The Insurance Company Says The Claim Will Be Paid – ERISA

May 28, 2017 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers needs to know about this ERISA case. It is from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and is styled, Houston Metro And Spine Surgery Center, LLC v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois, et al.

Houston Metro alleges BCBS failed to pay for medical services it provided under its patients’ health benefit plans. Hoston Metro sued under a promissory estoppel claim under Texas law, based on the allegation that Houston Metro provided the medical services only after BCBC represented that the patient and procedure were covered by a health benefit plan and that Houston Metro would be paid in accordance with that plan. BCBS moved to dismiss the claim based on it being preempted by ERISA.

Section 1132(a) allows an ERISA plan’s participants and beneficiaries to sue “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of the plan, to enforce his rights under the terms or the plan, or to clarify his right to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” The United States Supreme Court has read 1132 to preempt any state law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement scheme.