Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

Insurance Rates And Owning A Home

March 26, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most insurance lawyers like to think they can discuss insurance issues with their clients. Keeping informed as to what is happening in the insurance world allows that to be done. The New York Times published an article in February 2016, that has to information that can be helpful. The title of the article is, Some Auto Insurance Premiums Penalize Home Renters, Study Finds.

What does owning a home have to do with car insurance? Quite a bit, when it comes to the rates consumers pay for auto coverage, a new analysis finds.

Consumers pay about 7 percent more on average for annual car insurance premiums if they rent their home rather than own it, even if they have stellar driving records, according to the Consumer Federation of America‘s analysis of premium quotes from the major auto insurance companies.

Claims For Bad Faith Insurance

March 24, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Colleyville insurance lawyers handling bad faith claims need to read this U. S. Southern District, McAllen Division, opinion. The case is styled, Mark Dizdar, at al, vs. State Farm Lloyds, et al.

The claim arises from hail and storm damage sustained to Dizdar’s property on March 29, 2012. Shortly after the storm, Dizdar reported the claim to State Farm. Thereafter, Wallis inspected the property on behalf of State Farm on June 23, 2012, estimating the loss to the property at $1,096.76. On the same day, State Farm issued a check for $199.16, after applying depreciation and deductible.

On July 19, State Farm received an estimate from Dizdar’s contractor alleging that the damages totaled at least $24,000. Shortly thereafter, Dizdar requested a re-inspection of the property. On August 18, 2012, a subsequent inspection by Wallis resulted in an additional payment of $49.79. State Farm then closed the claim file.

Rules For An Insurance Lawsuit To Survive In Federal Court

March 22, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers will often times find themselves in Federal court. When this happens it is necessary that the lawsuit pleadings be in proper form. An opinion from the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas is instructive. The style of the case is, Cathy Broxterman v. State Farm Lloyds.

This case arises out of a dispute between a policyholder and her insurer regarding the extent of damages and amount of loss suffered to her property. State Farm issued a homeowners’ policy to Plaintiff, effective December 1, 2003, through December 1, 2014. On or about April 3, 2014, the Property suffered damage due to storm-related conditions.

On or about April 26, 2014, prior to reporting her claim to State Farm, Plaintiff signed document for representation by her public adjuster, John Bellerose, and the Voss Law Firm, to whom Bellerose referred her. On May 1, 2014, Bellerose’s company, Aware Owner, issued an estimate for the storm damages totaling $15,015.09. On or about May 27, 2014, Jesse Corona of the Voss Law Firm reported Plaintiff’s insurance claim to State Farm.

Making Home Owner Claims

March 20, 2016 | Mark S. Humphreys

Homeowner insurance policies can be difficult to interpret when it comes time to make a claim for benefits. This 5th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion provides some insight into how the courts review and interpret insurance policies. The case is styled Claudia Ayoub; Gerald C. Ayoub v. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.

The principal question presented in this dispute over a homeowner’s insurance policy is whether a section of the policy setting forth a “reconstruction cost less depreciation” standard for dwelling loss is a coverage provision, on which the insured has the burden of proof, or a limitation of liability provision, on which the insurer has the burden. The court also had to decide how insureds can prove market value under Texas law for personal items which may have no such thing. For the reasons discussed below, the court found that summary judgment in favor of the insurer was not warranted on either issue.

The Ayoubs’ own a home in El Paso. Prior to the loss in this case, it was worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. The home was insured under a “Texas Standard Homeowners Policy” issued by Chubb. Coverage A of the Policy insured the dwelling for up to $2,511,000. Coverage B insured personal property in the home for up to $1,506,600. At additional cost, the Ayoubs purchased replacement cost endorsements for both their dwelling and personal property.