Dallas Texas life insurance lawyers will know this case and use it where necessary.  The case is from 1938, and was issued by the El Paso Court of Appeals.  It’s style is, National Life & Accident Co. v. Dickinson.

This is a judgment case wherein National Life sued Vera Dickinson, to cancel a life insurance policy issued on Vera’s husband, Fred.  National Life alleged that Fred made misrepresentations in his application for life insurance.  Fred later died.

The particular matters about which it was alleged Fred gave untrue and false answers were: (a) If he had ever had syphilis, and he answered “No,” whereas he did have; (b) he was asked about consulting a physician, and he answered “No,” whereas he had consulted a physician for various ailments; (c) whether he had been an inmate of a hospital, and answered “No,” when he had been an inmate of a hospital; (d) he was asked to give the names of physicians consulted, and he gave the name of only one, when he had consulted several; (e) he was asked if any physician ever gave unfavorable opinion of his health with reference to military or naval service, to which he answered “No,” when he had appeared before a medical board in 1933, and on examination was disqualified for active duty in the navy on account of his health, and he was then so advised; (f) it was alleged that the policy and application provided that the policy should not become effective unless it was delivered to Fred while he was in good health, and that Fred was not in good health when the policy was delivered to him.  National Life alleged that by reason of the matters stated the insurance contract never took effect, and rescission was sought on that ground.

The Houston Chronicle published an article in February on a topic that lawyers who handle hail damage claims need to know about.  The title of the article is, Insurers, Plaintiffs Lawyers Square Off In Austin Over Hail Storm Bill.

Lobbyists representing insurance companies are pushing legislation they say will prevent premium increases by weeding out “abusive” lawsuits over damages caused by hail and other storms in what is shaping up as a battle royal with consumers and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Gov. Greg Abbott raised the stakes when he used his State of the State address earlier this week to proclaim that “hailstorm litigation is the newest form of lawsuit abuse.”  He urged the Republican-controlled legislature to send him a bill that he can sign into law to limit those types of lawsuits.

Palo Pinto insurance lawyers know the above question can be difficult to answer.  Each situation is different.  The Stowers doctrine in the law is an example to look toward for some understanding.

The heart of a Stowers claims is the 1929 decision in G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity.

In Stowers, the insurance company refused to accept a third party’s offer to settle the asserted claim within policy limits and a judgment in excess of the policy limits resulted.  The court imposed a duty for an insurance company to handle settlement demands reasonably.

Dallas and Tarrant County life insurance lawyers should read this case from 1932.  It is important to point out that this case has been disapproved by a later court but the idea behind the case is still relevant to arguing similar facts.  The case is styled, First Texas Prudential Insurance Co. v. John Pipes and is out of the El Paso Court of Appeals.

John Pipes was the beneficiary on a life insurance policy insuring the life of his wife.  When she died, he submitted a claim for benefits and was denied.  Upon trial of the case, judgment was awarded to Pipes and this appeal followed.

First Texas points out that the application for insurance contained the question:  Has life proposed ever suffered from consumption?  The question was answered “No.”  First Texas submits that said answer was false; that the application was signed by Pipes and without the knowledge of the insured; that the uncontroverted evidence shows that if the application for the policy had reflected that the assured had had incipient tuberculosis, though arrested, said application would have been rejected, and that under the evidence the court should have found that said representation was material to the risk as well as false, and, so finding, should render judgment for First Texas.

If you are a Mason County Texas life insurance lawyer, here is a 1967, Tyler Court of Appeals opinion you need to know.  The opinion is styled, Southern Life & Health Insurance Company v. Gordon Grafton.

This lawsuit resulted from the denial of life insurance benefits from Southern Life to Gordon after the death of his wife.  Southern Life denied the claim due to policy language stating:  “This policy shall take effect on the date of issue provided the assured is then alive and in sound health and free from accidental injury.”

Southern Life asserts that Gordon’s wife, Marjorie was not in good health.  They then returned the paid premiums.

Rock Springs, Texas insurance lawyers would want to know about this Houston Division, Southern District case.  The opinion was issued in January 2017, and is styled, JYC Enterprise Inc. v. Allied Property and Casualty Insurance, et al.

In this case JYC sued Allied, its adjuster (Heller), and Bay Area Fire & Safety, Inc., after a fire destroyed property belonging to JYC.  The suit was filed in state court and removed to federal court by the Defendants.  The Defendants are alleging the suit against Bay Area is a fraudulent and only brought in order to defeat diversity because Bay Area is a Texas corporation.

JYC asserted claims against Allied and Heller as to the sufficiency of the payment under the policy for Business Income losses and as to disputes about the policy’s coverage.  JYC asserted a claim against Bay Area for negligence in its inspection of the fire suppression system.  Allied responded, contending that because the claim against Bay Area was fraudulently misjoined, the Bay Area claim should be severed and remanded.

Persons with homeowners insurance policies are in a better place today than they were before January 27, 2017.  Insurance lawyers in Mason Texas, Menard, Junction, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, and all over Texas need to celebrate a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion.  The opinion is styled, Nassar v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al.

The Nassars’ suffered losses after Hurricane Ike hit there home and damaged various parts of their property.  Disputes arose over the value of various items damaged including the Nassars’ damaged fencing.

In addition to their residence, the Nassars’ property contains barns, outbuildings, and a system of fencing.  The system of fencing spans over 4,000 linear feet, includes a white picket fence at the northeast corner of the dwelling, an ornamental iron fence … in front of the dwelling, numerous cross fences, garden fences and pens, and a large perimeter fence constructed of 2′ x 6′ lumber with wooden posts and eight foot intervals, on which welded wire mesh is attached.

Not just Kimble County automobile owners but everyone should be concerned about a story published recently in the New York Times.  It is titled, “Millions Live Where Car Insurance Is Unaffordable, Study Says.”

Millions of Americans live in areas where auto insurance is unaffordable according to a new analysis from the federal government.

The report, from the Federal Insurance Office, analyzed premiums for basic liability automobile coverage in more than 9,000 zip codes with high proportions of “underserved” consumers, including minorities and people with low to moderate incomes.  It found that rates were unaffordable in 845 of such zip codes, or about 9 percent of them.  Nearly 19 million people live in the unaffordable areas, the report found.

What can happen when the wrong age is on a life insurance application?  If you are a Mason County insurance lawyer, you should read this Northern District, Dallas Division, opinion.  It is styled, Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Lance Robbins, et al.

On a prior opinion in this case, the court granted Jackson National’s motion to interplead funds into the court registry, minus attorney fees and court costs totaling $7,000.

Jackson National now moves the court to amend the motion because they have learned the aged of the insured was misstated in the policy application and as a result, the one million dollar policy is now $907,502.02.

There probably is not any insurance lawyer that can specifically tell a client exactly what the value of a claim is.  But there are issues, legal and otherwise, to consider when trying to determine the value of a claim.  A 14th Court of Appeals opinion offers so guidance.  The opinion is a 2017, opinion and is styled, In Re State Farm Lloyds.

This case is a dispute between insureds and their insurer under an appraisal clause in the insurance contract.  It is a mandamus proceeding seeking to have the trial judge enforce the appraisal clause.

After a claimed loss sustained under the policy, State Farm’s adjuster agreed that there was a loss but valued the loss at $432 which was less than the $8,000 deductible.  The insured had hired a public adjuster who valued the loss at $73,000.  The insured’s sued State Farm for breach of contract and various violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

Contact Information