Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Saginaw insurance lawyers will know that a lot of cases against insurance companies end up in Federal Court. The pleading standard in Federal Court is high. Understanding the Rule 12(b)(6) is important. This is illustrated in a 2015, opinion from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The style of the case is Infectious Disease Doctors,P.A. v. BlueCross BlueShield of Texas, A Division of Health Care Service Corporation, et al.

In this case the pleadings were found to be adequate. What is important to realize is most insurance companies will have their lawyers file motions to get the case thrown out of court on technicalities. You must be prepared for this.

To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” A claim meets the plausibility test “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must set forth “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” The “factual allegations of a complaint must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.” When the allegations of the pleading do not allow the court to infer more than the mere possibility of wrongdoing, they fall short of showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Duncanville insurance lawyers need to understand the pre-requisites to filing a lawsuit against an insurance company. The most important of these pre-requisites is found in Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.154. This section requires pre-suit notice. The failure to follow this requirement is discussed in a recent opinion from the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The case is styled, Johnson Medical Associates v. State Farm Lloyds.

State Farm Lloyds removed this insurance dispute from state court to federal court on February 25, 2015. Shortly thereafter, State Farm timely filed a Verified Plea in Abatement pursuant to Section 541.155(a) of the Texas Insurance Code on grounds that it did not receive the statutorily-required pre-suit notice of Plaintiff’s claims. On March 23, 2015, the Court abated the action and ordered Johnson Medical Associates to file a notice indicating the date on which it tendered the statutorily-required notice to State Farm. Johnson Medical failed to comply with the Court’s Order or otherwise respond. Thus, on August 12, 2015, the Court again ordered Johnson Medical to file a notice with the Court indicating the date on which it tendered the statutorily-required notice to State Farm. The Court set August 24, 2015 as the deadline for Johnson Meidcal to comply and admonished Johnson Medical that “failure to timely file the notice with the Court will result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution.” To date of this opinion, State Farm had failed to file any notice with the Court. The Court then determined that this case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a court order. This authority “flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Such a dismissal may be with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if the failure to comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay or contumacious conduct and the imposition of lesser sanctions would be futile.

Flood insurance in Texas is about to change. The Claims Journal published an article in August of 2015, dealing with flood insurance coverage in Texas. Specifically, new areas that are now required to have flood insurance. The title of the article is, New FEMA Maps Could Force Central Texas Residents To Buy Flood Insurance. Here is what the article tells us.

Hundreds of Central Texas residents could be forced to buy flood insurance or face stricter building regulations for new structures nearly three months after deadly flooding, according to new Federal Emergency Management Agency advisory maps made public Friday.

The maps, which face a yearlong review process, would dramatically expand flood plains along the banks of the Blanco River and tributary creeks, the Austin American-Statesman reported.

Dallas area insurance lawyers need to know what is happening in the world of insurance claims. The Claims Journal, an insurance company business, published an article in August 2015, that showed information from Hurricane Katrina. The article is titled, Hurricane Katrina Facts & Figures.

The article tells us that Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Southern Florida as a Category 1 hurricane 10 years ago this week. It moved into the Gulf of Mexico where it strengthened into a Category 5 hurricane, it then made a second landfall on August 29 in Southern Louisiana as a Category 3 hurricane and finally made a third landfall close to the Louisiana Mississippi border.

The U.S. Census Bureau released a special edition of its Facts for Features highlighting the areas that sustained the most damage: New Orleans and the Mississippi coast.