Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Federal Court Pleadings And Remand – The Opposite

November 27, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Palo Pinto County insurance attorneys know the insurance companies want to litigate their cases in Federal Court. Insurance attorneys representing individuals and small businesses know they can often times get a better result for their clients in State or County Court.

Another U.S. McAllen Division opinion discusses the same issue as discussed here two days ago, yet with a different result. The style of the case is, Pablo Martinez v. Allstate Texas Lloyds.

Martinez was insured with Allstate and sued Allstate based on their handling of a claim resulting from a storm. Martinez alleged that Allstate failed to “fully compensate” them. Martinez sued in State Court and Allstate removed the case to Federal Court. Martinez sought a remand of the case.

Federal Court Pleadings And Remand

November 26, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County insurance attorneys know that it is best for their clients to try and keep their case in State or County Court. The insurance lawyers know it is best to get their case in Federal Court. The U.S. McAllen Division had a case where the argument on this issue was a little different from what is usually seen. The case is styled, Ida Rodriguez v. Allstate Texas Lloyds.

Rodriguez sued Allstate for a property damage claim that allegedly was not properly paid. Rodriguez sued Allstate in State Court and Allstate removed the case to Federal Court. Rodriguez filed a Motion to Remand the case back to the State Court.

One argument in this case was that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.

Read The Insurance Policy?

November 24, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Weatherford insurance lawyer will always tell you “read the policy” or risk losing on a case where you otherwise thought you had coverage. A recent case may change that advice, depending on the facts.

When a plaintiff fails to read an insurance policy, they usually don’t have much of a case against an insurer if they’re denied coverage.

But one insurance lawyer recently convinced Houston’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals that his client could sue an insurance company over a policy he’d never laid eyes on before filing a claim.

ERISA And Statute Of Limitations

November 22, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County lawyers know that insurance policy’s have to be read. Otherwise the result in a U.S. Eastern District of Texas case, can be the result. The case is styled, Rita Jones v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al.

This was a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Hartford. The Court granted the motion.

Jones filed suit under ERISA, Section 1132 arising from Hartford’s decision to terminate long-term disability insurance benefits.

Properly Suing The Adjuster

November 20, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers need to read this case for seeing one way to properly sue an insurance company adjuster. The case is from the U.S. Western District, Del Rio Division. It is styled, Alfonso Gaytan and Tere Gaytan v. State Farm Lloyds and Alberto Garza.

This litigation arises out of storm that hit Eagle Pass, Texas, in April 2014. The Plaintiffs submitted a claim for repairs under the State farm policy and Garza was the adjuster assigned to handle the claim. Garza’s inspection was unacceptable to Plaintiffs and a lawsuit was filed in State Court and State Farm had the case removed to Federal Court based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).

Plaintiff’s filed a motion to remand and there was an argument about the 30 day deadline imposed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1447. The Plaintiffs prevailed on this argument.

Insurance Company – Deny Deny Deny

November 19, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Horror stories abound in the insurance claims arena, but what has happened to one Texas resident is at the top. The Houston Press reported on a story titled, Eight Years After Ike, Insurance Firm Still Won’t Pay Homeowner.

It has been eight years since Hurricane Ike ripped through the Gulf and Houston’s surrounding areas, but homeowner Gail Menchaca’s insurance company has still not paid her a cent for the damages to her home.

In a case that could have sweeping implications for how thoroughly insurance companies choose to inspect property damage and whether firms have any real motivation to pay you anything, Menchaca’s insurance company, USAA Texas Lloyd’s Company, has fought her all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. Even after a Montgomery County trial court and appeals court ordered USAA to pay Menchaca not only for the property damages covered under the policy, but also thousands more in court and attorneys fees, USAA has refused. At the heart of the case is this: If an insurance company fights you in court for eight years, at the end of it all, are you entitled to recover any damages beyond the money you need to fix your house?

Your Auto Insurance And Who’s At Fault

November 17, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Hail Claims And Federal Court

November 15, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

As has been stated here many times, insurance companies prefer to litigate cases in Federal Court, whereas, attorneys representing claimants prefer to litigate cases in State Court. The Northern District, Dallas Division, issued an opinion wherein the fight over which court a case would be heard was the subject of a Motion to Remove and Motion to Remand. The case is styled, Ministerio International Lirios Del Valle v. State Farm Lloyds, et al.

Plaintiff sued State Farm and the adjuster Galvan. The purpose of suing Galvan was to keep the case out of Federal Court. State Farm alleges Galvan was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.

The 5th Circuit recently held that, when deciding whether a defendant has been improperly joined, a federal court must apply the federal pleadings standard. This standard requires the plaintiff to plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has factual plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Where the well pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not shown — that the pleader is entitled to relief. Although the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than labels and conclusions. And a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

Suing The Adjuster Has To Be Done Correctly

November 13, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

The Western District, San Antonio Division issued an opinion in the case styled, McClelland v. Chubb Lloyd’s Insurance Company of Texas and Robert Pritchard.

The McClellands suffered a loss to their home and Chubb sent adjuster Pritchard to evaluate and adjust the loss. The McClellands did not like the result and sued Chubb and Pritchard in State Court. Chubb and Pritchard had the case removed to Federal Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 1441, defendants may remove to the appropriate district court any action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction. Under Section 1332, district courts have original jurisdiction in diversity actions between citizens of different states that involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. District courts are prohibited from exercising jurisdiction when a party has been improperly or collusively joined to manufacture federal diversity jurisdiction. Improper joinder may be established by (1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.

Life Insurance And Interpleader

November 12, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance lawyers will have potential new clients call up and say they have been served with legal papers. These papers will state a life insurance company has death benefits they want to pay but the life insurance company is unsure who to pay the benefits to and so, they are interpleading the life insurance proceeds into the court, notifying people who have a possible interest in the benefits and letting the court and parties decide who is entitled to the proceeds.

A Western District, San Antonio Division opinion styled, Erika Sanchez v. Prudential, sheds some light on this subject.

Following the death of the insured, the OSGLI received three different SGLI Election and Certificates form the U.S. Army Reserves. One certificate dated June4, 2011, designates the insured’s sisters, Middleton and Vial, as co-beneficiaries of the Death Benefit. The June 2011 Certificate bears the insured’s electronic signature and indicates that it was received and/or accepted by the appropriate branch of service. A second Certificate, dated August 6, 2011, designates Sanchez, the insured’s estranged wife, as a primary beneficiary of 75% of the Death Benefit and Middleton as the primary beneficiary of 25% of the Death Benefit. The August 2011 Certificate also named Vial as a secondary beneficiary. However, there is no indication that the August 2011 Certificate was submitted, received, and/or accepted by the applicable branch of service. The final Certificate, dated September 30, 1975, designates Sanchez as the sole primary beneficiary of the Death Benefit. The Sanchez Certificate bears what purports to be the Insured’s signature; however the Insured’s date of birth is listed as the date he signed the Sanchez Certificate. Richard Teniente, the Insured’s Army Reserve Unit Administrator, is listed as the personnel clerk who allegedly completed the Sanchez Certificate. However, Mr. Teniente states in a letter that he is unable to validate the Sanchez Certificate because it appears to have been altered.