Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance Company Going Bankrupt

April 10, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys need to understand what can be done when an insurance company files for bankruptcy. To start with, when an insurance company becomes insolvent they do not file for bankruptcy, they become “insolvent.”

Companies that write insurance policies in Texas are heavily regulated, and the Texas Legislature has provided numerous safeguards to protect the public against an insurance company becoming insolvent. These regulations can be found in Title 4 of the Texas Insurance Code and Section 642.105 of the Texas Transportation Code. In connection with these statutory safeguards, there are additional safeguards there are further protections Section 1952 of the Texas Insurance Code. As an adjunct to this requirement, the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Act provides further protection for the public against failure of licensed insurance companies as a result of insolvency.

The Act creates a Guaranty Association for the purpose of paying unpaid claims, including those of third-party liability claimants that arise out of and are within the insured’s coverage, but not in excess of the insured’s applicable policy limits. Covered claims are limted to $300,000.00 in value.

Suing An Agent

April 9, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mansfield insurance attorneys understand the Texas Insurance Code definitions to be used and how they apply when suing an insurance agent. A 1997, Texas Supreme Court discusses this. The style of the case is, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Garrison Contractors.

The primary issue in this case is whether an insurance agent employed by an insurance company is a “person” under section 541.002 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court of appeals held that Robert Garrett, a Liberty employee-agent, was a person under that provision, and accordingly subject to suit under the Insurance Code. This Court affirmed that decision.

The Court granted Liberty and Garrett’s application for writ of error primarily to consider whether an insurance company employee is a “person” under the Insurance Code.

Insanity And Life Insurance

April 7, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance attorneys in Texas won’t run across this situation very often but if they do here is a case for guidance. The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1964, dealing with the issue of whether or not a beneficiary is excluded from recovery of the life insurance benefits when the beneficiary killed the insured but was insane at the time they took the life of the insured. The case is styled Simon v. Dibble.

This suit presents the question of whether or not an insane husband who shoots and kills his wife, may receive the proceeds of insurance policies taken out by her with him as beneficiary, and whether or not he may inherit her share of the community property. On November 12, 1962, Orlando V. Dibble, Jr., while insane, shot and killed his wife, Sabina Julia Dibble. She left two insurance policies in which he was the beneficiary, and the insurance companies have paid into court the proceeds of these policies with the request that the court determine who should receive them. Article 21.23 of the Insurance Code, V.A.T.S., (today it is Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151) reads as follows:

The interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy or contract heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is the principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured. When such is the case, the nearest relative of the insured shall receive said insurance.

Life Insurance Policy And Insanity

April 5, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington life insurance lawyers will not see this very often. Maybe never. But here it is. The Beaumont Court of Appeals issued this interesting 1975 opinion in this case styled, W.O. Hair v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co.

W. O. Hair, plaintiff below, sued Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company, alleging a cause of action by virtue of Section 1103.151 of the Insurance Code, for the death of his son, Rufus Hair, the insured, under the policies issued by the insurance companies above listed. The company urged a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court and from which the father seeks this review.

Rufus Hair, the insured, was shot to death by his wife Jonell, the designated beneficiary under the policies. The Texas Insurance Code provides:

Slayer Statute And Self Defense

April 5, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance lawyers know that the Texas Slayer Statute is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151. It says “A beneficiary of a life insurance policy or contract forfeits the beneficiary’s interest in the policy or contract if the beneficiary is a principle or an accomplice in wilfully fringing about the death of the insured.”

The self defense arguement related to this statute is discussed in a 1977, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, Bounds v. Caudle.

Dr. Bounds was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on his wife. He was later arrested and convicted of negligent homicide.

Forfeiting Life Insurance Benefits

April 3, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance lawyers probably already know this case. It is a 1992, 5th Circuit opinion styled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Teddy White v Leslie Yohey.

Leslie Yohey appeals an adverse summary judgment dismissing his claim for life insurance proceeds against Metropolitan.

Terri Yohey was the named insured under a group life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA). At the time of her death she had not designated a beneficiary. Her widower, Leslie Yohey, was convicted of her murder.

Who Recovers Life Insurance Benefits When The Beneficiary Is Responsible For The Death Of The Insured

April 2, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance lawyers will be faced with the above question more times than would be imagined. Fortunately the question is answered in the Texas Insurance Code and in Federal law cases. One example is a case from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The opinion is styled, American National Insurance Company v. John Huckleberry et al.

American inter-pled policy benefits into the escrow of the court and named four defendants who have a potential claim to the proceeds. The primary beneficiary, John Huckleberry was convicted of the murder of the insured. The secondary beneficiary is a minor, Truett Jason Huckleberry, whom the policy designates as the secondary beneficiary, represented here by Stevens, his guardian and natural mother The court had to decide who was entitled to the insurance proceeds: the secondary beneficiary or the heirs at law of the insured?

Pursuant to Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151, The interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy or contract heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is the principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured.

PIP

March 31, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers handling Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims will find this article about Florida PIP claims to be interesting. While Florida laws are different than Texas PIP laws, they are not much different. Texas PIP laws are found in the Texas Insurance Code statutes beginning with 1952.151. And don’t forget that the Prompt Pay Statutes apply to PIP. This article from the Claims Journal is an article written to and for Florida insurers handling PIP claims and is insightful. The title of the article is, 10 Commandments for Insurers Responding to Florida PIP Demand Letters.

Under Florida law, a party seeking reimbursement of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits must formally demand payment by the insurer before filing a lawsuit. Specifically, Florida Statute 627.736(10), in conjunction with other parts of the No Fault Law, outlines the procedures applicable to the submission and response to a demand letter. With that said, there are a myriad of factors to consider before preparing this response. Here are 10 commandments to guide you:

1. Read the demand letter carefully, including the attachments. You must figure out specifically what the demand letter is seeking. Not all demands are equal and an insufficient review of the plaintiff attorney’s demand could result in the insurer waiving certain defenses in its response.

Driving Without Insurance

March 29, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

All insurance lawyers will tell you to make sure there is insurance on your auto. But guess what, criminal lawyers will tell you the same.

Let’s start with the insurance lawyers. A recent article from the Claims Journal discusses what is happening in the State of Louisiana. The article is titled, Louisiana Using New Tactics to Collect Fines for Insurance Lapses.

Louisiana has implemented new ways of collecting fines from people the state believes are driving without insurance.

Owed Vehicle Exclusion

March 27, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas auto policy owners and their insurance lawyers need to know that the law discussed in this Missouri story is similar to the law in Texas. This story comes from the Claims Journal and is titled, Owned Vehicle Exclusion Defeats Underinsured Motorist Claim. Here is what the story says.

A U.S. district court in Missouri has rejected a policyholder’s strained interpretation of an “owned vehicle exclusion” standard in the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of automobile policies. The case, filed January 22, 2006, is entitled Walker v. Progressive Direct Ins.Co., et al., and ended in a judgment for the insurers, negating coverage.

The operative facts underlying the decision were not in dispute, so the parties made cross-motions for summary judgment. Steve and Ronda Walker, although married, were separated and had been living apart for three months by the time Steve was killed by a car driven by a third party while Steve was riding a motorcycle he alone owned. Although insured by Steve, the motorcycle policy had no UIM coverage. By contrast, Steve and Ronda were both named insureds on two auto policies issued by defendants, Progressive Direct and Progressive Max Insurance Companies (together, Progressive), with UIM coverage covering six vehicles, but not the motorcycle.