Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Federal Court And Home Owners Claim

April 21, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Irving insurance attorneys want to be aware of the proper ways of avoiding Federal Court to best help their clients. This is illustrated in a 2016, Southern District, Houston Division opinion styled, Hector Puente and Teresa Rivera v. Pillar Insurance Company and Matthew Greenhouse.

This case was removed from State Court by Pillar.

Plaintiffs had a homeowners policy with Pillar. They allege that Greenhouse is an independent licensed adjuster who mishandled their claim in various ways, including “failed to properly adjust the claim and summarily improperly denied the claim with obvious knowledge and evidence of serious cosmetic and structural damage.

What Will A Homeowners Policy Cover?

April 19, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

When someone gets sued, they need to find out if they have coverage to protect them. So the issue for most people becomes, will my homeowners policy cover me? Courthouse News Service published an article on March 10, 2016, that shows how far a homeowners policy can go to provide liability coverage. The title of the article is, Home Insurers Cornered On Woman’s Overdose.

A man who says his daughter overdosed after someone drugged and date-raped her can sue the insurers of the home where she died, an Illinois appeals court ruled.

Haley Johnson, 21, was out with friends in May 2012 when they met Joshua Skolnik, who bought them all drinks, according to the ruling, which merely summarizes the allegations put forward by Johnson’s father. There is no indication that Skolnik faced criminal charges over Johnson’s death.

Intentional Acts And Insurance Coverage And Sports

April 17, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers can tell you that most intentional acts are not covered by an insurance policy. What if the act occurs in the context of a sports event? A 1998, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case talks about this. The style of the case is, Monk v. Phillips.

Factual background – Michael, Phillips, Gary Duffek (“Duffek”), and Gary Watson (“Watson”) were playing a recreational game of golf as a foursome when the incident occurred. Phillips’s first tee shot on the second hole traveled off to the right side of the fairway into the trees. Phillips then shot a mulligan, a second tee shot, which also traveled off to the right and landed near the first ball. Because only the second ball was visible from the cart path, Michael and Duffek attempted to retrieve the missing first ball.

Phillips decided to play the second ball and proceeded to its location in the rough to the right of the fairway. At this point, Michael and Duffek, riding in the golf cart, passed in front of Phillips and then to Phillips’s right. Phillips heard Duffek say “look out, he’s fixing to hit.” No one told Phillips to wait. Phillips then hit the ball off the toe of his golf club, shanking the ball to the right at an approximately ninety-degree angle from where he intended the ball to go. The ball struck Michael, leaving him blind in his right eye.

Beneficiary Of Life Insurance

April 16, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Can the person causing the death of the insured still recover it they are the named beneficiary under the policy? This is a reasonable question to ask and this issue is discussed in the1969, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case styled, Giles v. Wiggins. Here is what it says.

This suit involves ascertainment of the rightful claimant to the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by National Life and Accident Insurance Company. The latter, as stakeholder, filed the suit and deposited $8,009.11 into the registry of the court for disposition by it to the claimants entitled thereto.

Vergia L. Giles, insured, was shot and killed by his wife, Evelyn Jean Wiggins, nee Evelyn Jean Giles, appellee and primary beneficiary of the policy.

Death, Life Insurance, Evidence

April 14, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington life insurance lawyers need to be aware of rules of evidence when presenting a case. This is illustrated in a1973, Eastland Court of Appeals case styled, Cooley v. Cooley.

The life insurance compan brought an interpleader action to determine the proper beneficiary under a policy of life insurance issued on the life of Melvin K. Cooley. The defendants were Mrs. Doris Cooley, the named beneficiary, Mary Helen Cooley as guardian of the estates of three minors and Sedco, Inc. and Sedco Persia, Inc., assignees of a portion of the insurance policy. Mary Helen Cooley contended that Doris Cooley should be disqualified as a beneficiary on the grounds that Doris Cooley willfully brought about the death of the insured, Melvin K. Cooley, being convicted and sentenced for same in the country of Iran. On the jury’s finding that Mrs. Doris Cooley did not willfully bring about the death of Melvin K. Cooley, the trial court entered judgment for Doris Cooley. Mary Helen Cooley appeals.

It was established on the trial of the cause that Mary Helen Cooley married Melvin Cooley in 1956. He was the father of her three children for whom she was duly qualified as guardian. This marriage terminated in 1962 by divorce.

Killing Insured In Self-Defense

April 12, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance attorneys in the Dallas Fort Worth area will have occasion to see something similar to this 1941, Waco Court of Appeals opinion. It is styled, National Life & Accident Ins. Co.,Inc., et al. v. Thompson.

This is a suit by Velma Brewer Thompson against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Incorporated, for the recovery of $200 and statutory penalty alleged to be due plaintiff as beneficiary in a policy of insurance issued by defendant on the life of plaintiff’s husband, wherein a brother and sisters of insured filed their plea of intervention asserting right to recover proceeds due under the policy by reason of their allegation that plaintiff wilfully brought about the death of insured. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant and interveners appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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: