Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance And Damages

April 28, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to know how to calculate damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Texas Insurance Code. A Beaumont Court of Appeals is a good case for instruction on this point. The style of the case is, National Lloyds Insurance Company v. Latosha A. Lewis.

The facts of the case are long and need to be read.

This case is an appeal from a jury trial where a jury found in favor of Lewis and against Lloyds for violations of the DTPA and the Texas Insurance Code. Lloyds appealed and the Court upheld the jury verdict with some minor adjustments.

Bad Faith Insurance

April 26, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers handling bad faith claims need to read this 2015 opinion from the Beaumont Court of Appeals. It is styled, National Lloyds Insurance Company v. Latosha A. Lewis.

Lloyds appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Lewis following a jury trial. In seven appellate issues, Lloyds challenged (1) the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings regarding causation, damages for mental anguish, breach of contract, and breach of the DTPA, and exemplary damages, (2) the trial court’s inclusion in the charge of an instruction regarding waiver and its refusal to include an instruction on spoliation, (3) and the trial court’s rendition of a judgment that allegedly failed to force Lewis to make an election of remedies. This Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment as modified.

The facts of this case are long and detailed and need to be read for a good example of what the courts deem to be bad faith. In the case, this court upheld an award of mental anguish damages to Lewis because of the conduct of Lloyds in handling her claim for damage.

Insurance And Removal To Federal Court

April 25, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Richardson insurance law attorneys will find that when suing insurance companies that the companies want to remove cases to Federal Court. Federals Courts are more favorable grounds for insurance companies to fight their legal battles. Insurance lawyers working for the insureds want to keep the fight in State Courts.

A 2015, opinion from the US District Court, Fort Worth Division is a good opinion to read. It is styled, Living Word Teaching Center v. Robert Morris Adams, Jr. and Allstate Insurance Company.

Living Word brought the instant insurance action in State Court. The church, secured an insurance policy from Allstate covering its 5,000 square foot church. The church later built a large arena next to the church and sought additional coverage for the arena from Allstate. In December 2013, the arena suffered a collapse and was damaged. When Living Word filed an insurance claim for the damage suffered, Allstate advised that the arena was not listed on the policy and therefore, was not covered.

What Is A “Motor Vehicle” In An Insurance Policy

April 23, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Duncanville insurance lawyers will find that the definitions in insurance policies often have their own meaning. So, what is the definition of “motor vehicle” as it relates to an insurance policy? A 1977, Texas Supreme Court opinion helps. It is styled, Slaughter v. Abilene State School et al.

Slaughter, while an employee of the Abilene State School, was injured when another employee backed a tractor over Slaughter and pinned him between the tractor wheel, the ground and a building.

The trial Court entered judgment for Slaughter and the appeals court reversed.

Hail Damage Claims And Delay In Payment

April 21, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers handling hail damage claims as well as any other insurance claims need to read this 2004, Texas Supreme Court opinion. It is styled, Republic Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.

This is a first part claim. Following a hail storm Mex-Tex, Inc. notified its property insurer, Republic, of damage to the roof of Signature Mall, a retail shopping center that Mex-Tex owned. Mex-Tex claimed that the roof had been destroyed and should be replaced. Republic immediately investigated the claim but disputed the amount of damage attributable to hail. The roof had leaked for a long time, and months before the storm Mex-Tex had obtained estimates to replace it. While Republic was still investigating the claim, it learned that Mex-Tex had retained a contractor to go ahead, without waiting on Republic, and replace the roof at a cost of $179,000 with one of the same kind, but which would be fixed to the building mechanically rather than by ballast (that is, rocks) as the old roof had been. Republic’s first response was to offer what it believed was the cost to repair the minimal hail damage, $22,000, as what it termed “partial payment” of Mex-Tex’s claim, but when Mex-Tex rejected that offer, Republic sent Mex-Tex a check on August 20, 1999, including $145,460, an amount representing what Republic’s engineer had determined was the cost of replacing the mall’s roof with an identical one, attached by ballast.

Mex-Tex returned the check. Republic re-sent it. Mex-Tex re-returned it. Republic then replied that it would hold the money until Mex-Tex accepted it, which Mex-Tex did on October 12, 2000, as partial payment of its claim. Meanwhile, Mex-Tex had sued Republic for breach of the policy and delay penalties under the Prompt Pay Statute. After trial the court found that Republic’s failure to pay Mex-Tex the $179,000 was a breach of Republic’s policy obligation to replace the roof with one of “like kind and quality”-despite the fact that Mex-Tex’s cost exceeded the replacement cost of an identical roof by $33,540-and awarded Mex-Tex that difference in damages. The court also awarded Mex-Tex 18% per annum on $179,000 from November 4, 1999, the date the court determined that Republic should have tendered that amount, which was 75 days after it tendered $145,460, to the date Mex-Tex accepted that partial payment almost a year later, and thereafter on the $33,540 difference until judgment.

Grand Prairie Insurance Lawyer Proving Claim

April 19, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is how at least one Grand Prairie insurance lawyer would prove a claim related to property damage. By looking at the 2011, Texas Supreme Court case, Reid Road MUD No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd.

In this case the Court addressed whether an employee of the corporate general partner of a limited partnership qualifies to testify about the fair market value of partnership property under either the Property Owner Rule or Texas Rule of Evidence 701.

Speedy Stop is a Texas limited partnership that owns and operates convenience stores in Texas. Reid Road MUD sought to acquire a waterline easement across land owned by Speedy Stop. The District and Speedy Stop were unable to agree on compensation for the easement, so the District initiated condemnation proceedings pursuant to Texas Property Code, Section 21.012(a).

“User” Of A Vehicle

April 18, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County insurance attorneys need to know how to identify who a “user” is as it relates to someone using a vehicle. A 1997, Dallas Court of Appeals case is helpful. It is styled, American Economy Insurance Company v. United Services Automobile Association. Scott Johnston, herein referred to as Driver was driving a vehicle belonging to his father. Three friends, including Benjamin Ellis, were passengers. The driver and passengers were intoxicated. The vehicle collided with a second car and the Driver, Scott, was killed.

The occupants of the second car brought suit against the Father, alleging that the vehicle had crossed the center line while traveling at an excessive rate of speed. The plaintiffs also alleged that the three passengers had encouraged, aided and abetted the Driver’s negligent acts and reckless driving, and that the passengers’ occupancy of the vehicle constituted a “use” of the vehicle.

The Father was insured by USAA. Ellis was insured by AEIC. When the Passenger was served with lawsuit papers, the complaint was delivered to an AEIC agent with a request for defense. AEIC wrote to USAA requesting that USAA assume the defense. USAA refused stating that there was doubt whether the Passenger qualified as a permissive “user” of the Johnstone vehicle. AEIC assumed the Passenger’s defense. The plaintiffs settled their claim against the Passenger and the Passenger executed a general release in favor of USAA in return for $11,000.00 in payment. Plaintiffs then dismissed their lawsuit against the Passenger with prejudice. AEIC wrote to USAA requesting reimbursement for defense costs. USAA refused.

Insurance Non-Assignment Clauses

April 16, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys need to be aware of non-assignment clauses in insurance contracts. The 2005, Dallas Court of Appeals case, Hoffman v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company opinion is a good case to read.

This is an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment in a dispute arising out of the denial of an insurance claim. Hoffman through its successor in interest and assignee of insurance proceeds, Dallas Medical Holdings, Ltd., sued St. Paul after St. Paul denied an insurance claim for alleged plumbing leak damages to a medical clinic building that occurred when Hoffman owned the building. This Court affirmed the ruling.

In November 1999, Hoffman filed a claim under its commercial property insurance policy with St. Paul for damages to Hoffman’s clinic building allegedly caused by plumbing leaks. In January 2000, while the insurance claim was pending, Hoffman sold the clinic building and other items to Dallas Medical Holdings, Ltd. The contract for sale provided that, ” . . . if a claim has been made by Seller against any insurance carried on the Property, . . . Seller will assign any rights Seller has under such policy to Purchaser at Closing.” The contract further provided, “Seller agrees to assign to Purchaser at Closing all rights of Seller in and to the insurance policy or policies carried by Seller to provide insurance protection of the Property.”

Insurance Lawyers Need To Stay On Top Of These Changes

April 14, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance lawyers need to be keeping abreast of the changes to insurance law being proposed in the 2015 Texas Legislature.

The Dallas News columnist, Dave Lieber, is doing a good job keeping up with the news laws being proposed. One article titled, Watchdog: Texas Insurance Lobbyists Have A Plan You Won’t Like is worth reading. It tells us this:

The Watchdog wants you to know that the insurance industry is trying to slide something slick through the Texas Legislature toward Gov. Greg Abbott’s signing pen that’s designed to pay you smaller insurance claims.

Life Insurance Claims Denial

April 12, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to read the 1983 case Gloria Cartusciello v. Allied Life Insurance Company of Texas. The case is from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.].

The facts are simple and virtually undisputed. Michael Cartusciello obtained a credit life insurance policy from the Allied after executing an application on March 7, 1978, which stated in pertinent parts as follows:

I hereby certify that I am in good health and gainfully employed and that my age is as stated above,… I certify that I have read and that the information provided hereinbefore to the best of my knowledge is true and I understand that any false statement, inaccuracy, or misrepresentation material to the risk, may be used by Allied Life Insurance Company of Texas to contest a claim. I have not been attended by a physician or been a patient in a hospital within the last 12 months preceding the date of this Application for any of the following impairments: Diseases of the (1) heart, (2) lungs or respiratory system, (3) stomach or digestive system, (4) brain or nervous system, or (5) cancer to any part of the body, except as follows: