Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance Coverage And Intentional Acts

December 11, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most Garland insurance lawyers will be able to tell you that the majority of insurance policies do not cover claims that are the result of an intentional act. But just because an act is intentional does not mean that acts of others that may have facilitated the intentional act are excluded from coverage. This is explained in a 1998, Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] case styled, Williamson v. Vanguard Underwriters Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information from that case.

Vanguard Insurance Company had issued a homeowners insurance policy to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. The Wilsons’ son was involved in a plot to rob Mathew Vickers, and during the robbery, Kimberly Williamson was killed. Kimberly’s parents brought a wrongful death suit against Mr. and Mrs. Wilson alleging that they were negligent in their supervision of their son, Michael Wilson. The Wilsons settled the case, and they then sought to be indemnified under the homeowner policy issued by Vanguard. Vanguard filed a declaratory judgement claiming that the “intentional injury” exclusion in the policy barred coverage. The exclusion stated that the insurance did not apply to:

a. bodily injury or property damage which is caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.

Read Those Title Insurance Policy Exclusions

December 9, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells insurance lawyers will tell you that you have to be aware of “exclusions” in your insurance policies, otherwise, you risk finding out the hard way. A 1999, Austin Court of Appeals case illustrates this. The style of the case is, Zimmerman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

In 1988, the Zimmermans purchased residential property in Austin and obtained a policy of insurance from Chicago Title insuring title to that property. The policy obligates Chicago Title to defend the Zimmermans against any action in which a claim adverse to their title is asserted, unless the claim is based on matters excepted by the policy. In the separate litigation underlying this dispute, the Zimmermans were sued by the owners of adjoining property, Mary Joseph and her four daughters, who asserted title by adverse possession to a twelve- to twenty-inch strip of land insured under the Zimmermans’ policy. Chicago Title refused the Zimmermans’ request to defend them against the suit.

The Zimmermans sued Chicago Title for a declaration that it owed a duty under the policy to defend them in the underlying suit. The Zimmermans subsequently moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that Chicago Title had relied on four policy exclusions to refuse their defense, none of which applied. Chicago Title filed its own motion for summary judgment, arguing that each of the claimed exclusions justified its refusal to defend. Following a hearing, the district court rendered an order denying the Zimmermans’ motion and granting summary judgment for Chicago Title.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage And Workers Compensation

December 7, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys will run into situations where a person who is covered by workers compensation insurance is injured in a vehicle where the at fault driver does not have liability insurance for themselves but the injured employee does have uninsured motorist coverage. If the person covered by workers compensation accepts workers compensation benefits does their uninsured motorist coverage also have to compensate them for their injuries?

This was answered in a 1973, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case styled Hamaker v. American States Insurance Company of Texas. Here is some of the information from that case.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant granted in a suit for damages brought under the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy. The crucial question concerns the validity of a provision in the policy permitting the insurer to reduce the amount payable under the terms of the policy by the amount the insured has received in workmen’s compensation payments.

Misrepresentation Of Insurance Policy

December 6, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Fort Worth insurance lawyer needs to know when there was a misrepresentation of an insurance policy. A 1994, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals is worth reading on this topic. The style of the case is Celestino v. Mid-American Indemnity Insurance Company. Here is some of the information from that case.

Celestino is the assignee of Sabastian. The instant dispute involves Sebastian’s insurance policy, which Donald Donaho of the Donaho Insurance Agency (Donaho) purchased from Mid-American through underwriters Richard McNeil and Pro., Inc. With the full participation and cooperation of Sebastian, the Celestinos sued Mid-American.

As chief executive officer of Sebastian, Tommy Funk determines what insurance the company requires and obtains the necessary coverage. Funk maintained a primary policy for both workers’ compensation insurance and employer’s liability insurance as well as an umbrella policy for excess employer’s liability coverage. A later change in policies resulted in coverage with Mid-American.

Insurance Policy Cancellation And Other Law

December 4, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells lawyers who handle insurance cases need to be aware of the different ways that insurance policy cancellations work as it relates to other laws. A 1994, Waco Court of Appeals case shows a good example of this. The style of the case is, Truck Insurance Exchange v. Martin. Here is some information from that case.

On July 13, 1991, an employee of Martin was involved in a truck accident. Mr. and Mrs. Salazar were the driver and the passenger of the vehicle which was rear-ended by the eighteen-wheel Martin vehicle driven by Martin employee Terry Lawley.

The Salazars sued Martin and Lawley. Counsel provided jointly by Harco and by Truck defended Truck. The action was settled by Harco’s payment of $725,000 on behalf of Martin and Lawley. Truck did not participate in the settlement.

Use Of Vehicle

December 2, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Grand Prairie insurance lawyer needs to be able to hear the facts in a case and compare those facts to the policy and the law. When it comes to how the courts look at situations where “use” of a vehicle is at issue there is a 1994, Dallas Court of Appeals case that is good to know about. The style of the case is, Nationwide Property v. McFarland. Here is the relevant information from that case.

McFarland was working underneath his auto. The car was sitting up on jacks. While McFarland was underneath the car, Mashewske got in the car to see if it would start. When Mashewske shifted the car into neutral, it rolled backward, fell off the jacks, and landed on McFarland. McFarland sustained injuries from the accident.

At the time of the accident, McFarland was covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by Nationwide. The policy covered McFarland, as the named insured, and any other person “using” the covered auto. The policy identified McFarland’s auto as the “covered auto.” McFarland sued Mashewske for negligence. Mashewske tendered his defense to Nationwide, claiming he was entitled to coverage under McFarland’s policy because he was “using” the covered auto at the time of the accident. Nationwide agreed to provide Mashewske’s defense under a reservation of rights.

Is It Bad Faith To Cancel A Policy?

November 30, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lawyers handling bad faith cases in the Dallas and Fort Worth areas need to recognize a bad faith case when they see it. This is not always easy. An El Paso Court of Appeals case from 1996, is an example. The style of the case is, Columbia Universal Life Insurance Co. v. Miles.

Miles met with his insurance agent to change his heath insurance coverage. The agent filled out the application by asking Miles the questions listed on the application. Miles testified that he provided the agent with a complete medical history. The agent said Miles only talked about the conditions that appeared on the application. It turned out that Miles had an extensive medical history that was not listed on the application including immune deficiency and other chronic illnesses. Miles says he signed the application without signing it.

Shortly after filling out the application, Columbia called Miles to conduct a personal history interview and to confirm the information on the application. Miles told Columbia that the information on the application was true and correct. He did not mention his other medical problems and the policy was issued.

Intentional Act Versus Accident

November 29, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers can tell you that most insurance policies do not cover acts committed intentionally by the insured. They only cover accidents. A 1997, Dallas Court of Appeals case shows at least one way how this works. The style of the case is, Wessinger v. Fire Insurance Exchange.

Michael D. Wessinger got drunk and inexplicably punched Dennis Lee Morrison in the face several times, causing permanent vision loss. Wessinger does not deny that he attacked Morrison, but claims his intoxication influenced his decision to punch Morrison; he does not remember punching Morrison; and he never intended to injure Morrison. In this insurance coverage case the court has to decide whether Wessinger’s drunken decision to punch Morrison constitutes an accident, so that it falls within the definition of an occurrence covered by Wessinger’s homeowner’s insurance policy. Because the court concluded that voluntary intoxication does not destroy the volitional and intentional nature of Wessinger’s conduct and that Morrison’s injuries naturally resulted from that conduct, Wessinger’s act was not accidental and thus not a covered occurrence.

Morrison initially sued Wessinger alleging that Wessinger negligently caused him injury when, in a drunken fit, Wessinger punched Morrison repeatedly in the head. A jury found Wessinger liable and awarded Morrison $127,187 in damages. The district court signed a judgment on the verdict.

Cancellation For Nonpayment And Notice

November 27, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys in Dallas will see situations where a policy is cancelled due to nonpayment of premiums. The Texas Insurance Code, Sections 551.101 thru 551.113 deal with policy cancellations. But what about specific situations. Here is a 1997, case to look at. It is a U.S. Eastern District opinion styled, Clare v. Richards. Here is what it tells us.

Heilman applied for a commercial property insurance policy for his restaurant. Richards and City National were listed as an “additional interests” on the policy. City National held a mortgage on the property and Richards was the owner of the real property and building in which the restaurant was operated. Heilman entered into an insurance premium financing agreement with Texas Specialty Finance (TSF). Heilman gave TSF full power of attorney to cancel the insurance policy and collect any return premiums in the event of nonpayment of policy premiums when due. When Heilman failed to make payment, TSF mailed Heilman notice of intent to cancel the policy. Prior to cancellation, notice of cancellation was never sent to the “additional interests.”

On February 6, 1997, the policy was canceled effective January 31, 1997. The restaurant was destroyed by fire on February 9, 1997.

Insurance And Intent

November 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Garland insurance attorneys need to understand when coverage under an insurance policy is going to be provided and when it is not, due to the intent of the policyholder. A 1998, Amarillo Court of Appeals case is a good case to examine in helping to determine this issue. The style of the case is, Spruiell v. Lincoln Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information from that opinion.

McKean was a business person who leased a premises from Smith in which McKean operated the Tumbleweed Cafe. Spruiell’s Automotive shared an adjoining firewall with the cafe. Fire destroyed the cafe, heavily damaged Spruiell’s Automotive, severely burned McKean and killed McKean’s brother-in-law. McKean pleaded guilty to first degree arson and was sentenced to sixteen years in prison.

Spruiell subsequently filed a lawsuit against McKean and Smith alleging negligence in causing the fire and res ipsa loquitur, and seeking damages for the loss of personal property and equipment as a result of the fire.