Insurance lawyers in Mansfield and elsewhere should be able to explain to clients when payment is due under a claim. There are many situations and the situation determines when the claim should be paid and if a penalty applies.
The U.S. Western District Court of Texas, Waco Division issued an opinion in Cater v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance that needs to be read.
This is a case that was decided on two dueling motions for summary judgment.
Here is something for life insurance lawyers to read. It is from the Texas Department of Insurance web-site.
Subchapter R. VIATICAL AND LIFE SETTLEMENTS 28 TAC §§3.1701 – 3.1717
The Commissioner of Insurance adopts amendments to §§3.1701 – 3.1703, 3.1705, 3.1707 – 3.1715, and new §§3.1704, 3.1706, 3.1716, and 3.1717 concerning regulation of viatical and life settlements. The sections are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the August 11, 2000 issue of the Texas Register (25 TexReg 7465).
Attorney’s who handle hail claims need to know the proper way to sue an insurance adjuster unless they want to litigate the case in Federal Court. A U.S. Western District, Waco Division opinion is worth reading. It is styled, Polansky’s Wrecker Service v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company and William Gillis.
Polansky’s sued Universal and Giliis for violations of the Texas Insurance Code resulting after a claim for wind and hail damage was not sufficiently reimbursed. The case was filed in State Court and removed to Federal Court by Universal and Gillis on allegations of diversity and their assertion that Gillis was improperly joined in the lawsuit. Polansky’s is asking the court to remand the case stating that Gillis was not improperly joined. The Court’s job in this case is to examine whether or not Gillis was properly sued.
Polansky’s , makes the following factual allegations in regard to his claims against Gillis:
Weatherford life insurance lawyers know that the “Slayer Statute” works the same in Federal Court as in State Court. A 1986, opinion from the Northern District of Texas says so. The style of the case is, American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Huckleberry.
This case is before the court on the motion for summary judgment of defendant Deborah Huckleberry Stevens (“Stevens” or “the guardian”). Upon review of the motion, response, affidavits, exhibits, and brief, it is apparent that no issues of fact exist for trial. Consequently, for the reasons stated below, Stevens’ motion is granted.
American interpled the $100,000 face amount of its policy insuring the life of Beverly Ann Huckleberry, deceased.
Med-Pay is suppose to be an easy way to get medical bills paid when someone is injured in an automobile accident. As most insurance lawyers can tell you, that is not always the case. The San Antonio Express-News published an article on January 6, 2016, dealing with the way USAA, based in San Antonio, treats its customers when it comes to Med-Pay benefits in their policies. The article is titled, Med Pay Lawsuits Dog USAA.
San Antonio’s USAA continues to be dogged by lawsuits that allege it uses a “cost containment scheme” to delay, deny or reduce medical payouts to customers injured in auto accidents.
USAA has been vigorously defending such cases for more than a decade, though the number of lawsuits couldn’t be determined.
Texas life insurance lawyers who keep up with the world of life insurance will find this article interesting. It is from Forbes. The article is titled, 10 Things You Absolutely Need To Know About Life Insurance.
Life insurance is one of the pillars of personal finance, deserving of consideration by every household. I’d even go so far as to say it’s vital for most. Yet, despite its nearly universal applicability, there remains a great deal of confusion, and even skepticism, regarding life insurance.
Perhaps this is due to life insurance’s complexity, the posture of those who sell it or merely our preference for avoiding the topic of our own demise. But armed with the proper information, you can simplify the decision-making process and arrive at the right choice for you and your family.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to read this 5th Circuit opinion. The case is styled, Cox Operating, L.L.C. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co.
In this Katrina pollution clean-up coverage case, the 5th Circuit sheds a bit more light on the proper method for calculating an insurer’s delay penalty under Texas’ Prompt
Payment of Claims Act (the “Act”). Along the way, the court also determines whether a one-year cost-reporting requirement was an absolute, unwaivable condition precedent under a policy, or whether the insurer could, and did, waive it by anticipatorily denying the claim. The principal issue regarding the Act is whether, under a first-party property-damage policy, the 18% penalty begins to accrue multiple times as each new cost invoice is submitted to the insurer, as is probably the case with defense invoices under a liability policy, or whether the insurer’s first violation of a deadline under the Act starts the clock for the total amount of the claim ultimately determined. As discussed below, the insurer lost on all issues.
Arlington life insurance lawyers need to know how self-defense works in the Slayer Statute. The Slayer Statute is found today in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151. A case discussing self-defense is a Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion styled, Crawford v. Coleman.
Cornelius Shoaf appeals a judgment denying him insurance proceeds because a jury found he willfully caused the death of his wife, Sandra, the insured.
Four life insurance policies were in force at the time of Sandra’s death. The policies named Cornelius primary beneficiary. The insurance companies filed an interpleader naming the parties to this suit and paid the insurance proceeds into the registry of the court. Upon the trial of the cause, the jury found Cornelius had willfully caused the death of Sandra. The trial court then found that Cornelius had forfeited his right to receive the insurance proceeds under TEX.INS.CODE ANN. art. 21.23 (Vernon 1981) which states:
Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to read this case on the Slayer’s Statute. The statute is found at Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151. The case is from the Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.]. It is styled, Rumbaut v. Labagnara.
Texas law disallows recovery of life insurance proceeds by a beneficiary who is a party to willfully causing the insured’s death. This case requires the court to decide whether gross negligence is subsumed within the notion of willfulness. The court held it is not.
Appellant’s wife Ana Maria Rumbaut was lost at sea, when a sudden storm arose in the Gulf of Mexico where the two of them were sailing. Because Mrs. Rumbaut’s will named appellant as executor of her estate, he applied for probate upon his return. Appellees, Mrs. Rumbaut’s sons by a previous marriage, contested the application and alleged that appellant had willfully caused their mother’s death.
Parker County life insurance lawyers need to read and understand this 1992, Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] opinion. It is styled, Francis v. Marshall.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, Doris E. Marshall. She brought suit to recover as a beneficiary under a life insurance policy and the trial court held that she was the proper recipient of the proceeds. This Court affirmed.
Appellant, Douglas C. Francis, was found guilty of the murder of his wife, Karen E. Francis. Mrs. Francis had been insured under a $50,000 life insurance policy. Appellant was the primary beneficiary under this contract, and the deceased’s mother and appellee, Doris E. Marshall, was the contingent beneficiary. Upon appeal, appellant’s murder conviction was affirmed and he is now serving a life sentence.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
