Insurance attorneys in Dallas and Fort Worth need to be able to give advise on the above question. An Austin Division, Western District case is a good read for attorneys. The style of the case is, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Clayton J. Neuman.

Clayton Neuman was the driver of a car that crashed on November 11, 2011. A passenger in the car, Ellis McClane was killed. Neuman sought coverage under the umbrella policy that Neuman’s parents had with State Farm. State Farm filed this Declaratory Judgment action to determine whether or not they had any responsibility under the policy.

The policy had been issued to Grover and Laura Neuman in September of 2009. The policy provides coverage for to “insureds” and defines “insureds” as “you or your relatives whose primary residence is your household.”

Insurance law lawyers can tell you to be aware of arbitration clauses in your insurance contract. These usually favor the insurance company. The Austin-American Statesman published an article titled, Consumer Groups Oppose Insurance Company’s Push For Arbitration.

Government and private sector consumer advocates are calling on a state regulator to reject a proposal by Texas Farm Bureau’s insurance division to allow the company to require customers to go to arbitration over policy disputes.

Deeia Beck, head of the state’s Office of Public Insurance Counsel, wrote this week to David Mattax, the state commissioner of insurance, to tell him that arbitration endorsements on homeowner insurance policies can be harmful to Texans, and the Texas Department of Insurance should not approve a proposal by Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.

The Insurance Journal published a good article in 2014 that gives a perspective on a jury trial. It is worthwhile reading for hail claims lawyers. The article is titled, Juror Witnesses Firsthand What the Hail Is Going on in Texas.

Alejandro Stolarski is a United States citizen who emigrated from Mexico. Stolarski resides in Dallas County. Like hundreds of other Dallas County residents each week, Stolarski received a notice in the mail for jury duty. But unlike most Dallas County residents, he was excited about being called to jury duty. Even better, Stolarksi was thrilled when he was selected to actually serve on a jury and, in his words, be an integral part of his adopted country’s legal system. Unfortunately, Stolarski was selected to serve as a juror in a Texas hail damage lawsuit.

The trial was representative of thousands of hail damage lawsuits presently pending in courts across Texas. The homeowner alleged that her roof was damaged in an April 2011 hail storm. Three months later, on June 23, 2011, she submitted a claim to State Farm. One week later, on June 29, 2011, State Farm inspected the reported damage. Shortly thereafter, State Farm issued payment for the cost to repair minor damage to the roof and other building components. The homeowner accepted the payment. It appeared to State Farm that the claim had been amicably resolved.

Lawyers who handle hail damage claims will want to read this article. It was published by the Insurance Journal in February 2015. It is titled, Attorneys, Insurers Facing Off Over Hail Litigation In Texas.

The vestiges of twin hailstorms that ravaged the south Texas coast in 2012 are now blowing through the halls of the Capitol in Austin.

Two of the state’s most-powerful lobbies, the insurance industry and trial lawyers, are gearing up for a fight over a push to ease penalties against companies that deny homeowners their hail-damage claims.

The Insurance Journal published an article in May 2016, that insurance lawyers and consumers will find interesting. The article is titled, Fraud Lead to 20 Year Prison Sentence for Houston Insurance Agent.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson that a Houston-based insurance agent has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after a Texas Department of Insurance investigation uncovered an annuity scam, in which she bilked almost a dozen elderly clients out of more than $3 million.

TDI investigators built their case against Celia Castillo after getting complaints about the legitimacy of the investment products she was selling.

Texas insurance lawyers need to be able to tell their clients the responsibility the insurance company has under the Texas Prompt Pay Act.

To start with, no deadlines are triggered until the insurance company receives all items, statements, and forms reasonably required by the insurance company. Once the insurance company receives this information, seven new duties arise that were not mentioned in the previous post.

(5) Accept or reject the claim. – By the 15th “business day,” the insurer, pursuant to Section 542.056(a), must notify the claimant that it accepts or rejects the claim. This deadline extends to 30 “days” if the insurance company reasonably expects arson. Also, the insurance company can get a 45 day extension of these deadlines.

Insurance lawyers need to be aware of the Prompt Payment of Claims Act found in Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.051. When suing for violation of this Act, an attorney must know that at the same time, he must sue for breach of contract. This is illustrated in the 2005, Waco Court of Appeals opinion styled, United States Fire insurance Company v. Tammy Fugate.

Fugate and her family were injured in a motor vehicle collision with a vehicle operated by William Heintz. After filing suit against Heintz, Fugate settled with him for his remaining policy limits of $15,200.

Fugate had an automobile insurance policy with US Fire, and that policy provided underinsured and uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage for her.

Texas insurance attorneys should find this article from the Insurance Journal interesting. It is titled, F.I.D.O.’S Dog Bite Liability Insurance Fills Coverage Gap.

When commercial lines insurance agent and dog owner Debbie Turner began to look into help for her difficult dog back in 2000, she had no idea that her journey would end up leading to a new personal lines insurance option.

Now, she believes her new Covered Canine policy could take a bite out of the dog liability insurance marketplace.

Attorneys who handle insurance cases will eventually have a dog bite case they are involved in helping someone with. The Insurance Journal published a story titled, Number of Dog Bite Insurance Claims Falls But Average Claim Rises to $37K. This story is worth reading to keep informed with what is going on in the world of insurance.

The cost of dog-bite claims for U.S. insurers climbed 16 percent last year on higher medical expenses and larger settlements to resolve court disputes.

The average claim increased to $37,214 in 2015 from $32,072 a year earlier, according to the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group. The average in Arizona was $56,654, the highest figure among the 10 states with the most claims. California has the second highest average cost per dog bite claim at $44,983 while New Yok, at $44,320, comes in third.

Contact Information