Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Dallas Insurance Attorneys Need To Know What An Insurable Interest Is Defined

November 23, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers need to be able to discuss with a client when insurance is going to cover a loss. This may seem easy at first but that is not always the case. The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion on this issue in 1963, in a case styled, Smith v. Eagle Star Insurance Company. Here is some of the information from that case.

This is a suit to recover on a fire insurance policy for the loss of a house brought by Smith against Eagle Star Insurance Company, Ltd. Judgment was for Smith in the trial court.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment in the trial court. The trial court granted Smith’s motion for summary judgment and denied Eagle Star who appealed.

What Is An Insurable Interest

November 22, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance lawyers need to understand what an “insurable interest” is when it comes to making a claim. A 1999, Austin Court of Appeals opinion gives some guidance about this issue. The style of the opinion is, Valdez v. Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information from the case.

Valdez purchased an insurance policy from Colonial. The Colonial policy was a standard Texas automobile insurance policy which insured Valdez 1992 Plymouth. Later, Valdez sold and transferred title of the vehicle to his adult son, Rene. Rene obtained new financing for the vehicle and Valdez notified Colonial that Mercantile Bank was the new lienholder of the automobile. Valdez however did not notify Colonial of the change of title to his son, Rene. But, Colonial’s change form did not request that information.

Rene worked in Mexico City and left the car with Valdez who continued to use the vehicle and pay the policy premiums. Valdez renewed the policy. More than a year after Rene bought the car, the vehicle was stolen while parked outside Valdez’s residence. Valdez filed a claim that Colonial refused to honor. Colonial filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Valdez did not have an insurable interest in the stolen vehicle and that Colonial had no insurance coverage obligations under an automobile insurance policy issued to Valdez. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Colonial. This appeal followed.

Jury Trial Says Insurance Paid Enough

November 20, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys handling insurance claims need to be aware of legal matters be decided in the state that relate to insurance. The Insurance Journal ran an article dated October 21, 2014, that is titled, Jury Finds Texas Windstorm Insurer Adequately Paid City For Ike Claims. Here is what the article tells us.

Texas’ wind and hail insurer of last resort in coastal areas announced that a judgment has been entered in its favor in a lawsuit brought by League City in Southeast Texas.

The judgment signed on Oct. 16, 2014, by Presiding Judge Kerry Neves of the 10th District Court in Galveston, Texas, found that League City was not entitled to further payment from the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) over damage to city property during Hurricane Ike in 2008.

Dangerous Ways Insurance Companies Can Settle

November 18, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas and Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be able to explain to clients the different responsibilities insurance company’s have regarding settling cases. A 1999, U.S. 5th Circuit case is worth reading. The style of the case is, Travelers v. Citgo Petroleum. Here is what it says.

Travelers issued three polices to Wright Petroleum: a business auto policy, an umbrella policy, and a general liability policy. Citgo had a franchise agreement with Wright. Citgo was made an “additional insured” to each policy. The business auto policy provided that the carrier could investigate and settle any claim and its duty to defend or settle ended when the limits of coverage had been exhausted by payments of judgments or settlements.

In October 1992, one of Wright’s tanker trucks and an automobile collided. The tanker allegedly ran a red light at an intersection. Both drivers were killed. The tanker was carrying petroleum products for Citgo, as well as several other oil companies.

Named Property In An Insurance Policy

November 16, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will tell you that they need to know a few things to be able to properly discuss the legal aspects of a claim with a potential new client. One, what are the facts of the claim. Two, what does the policy say. And three, how do the courts interpret situations similar to the situation being dealt with.

Unpublished opinions historically are not given a lot of notice but they do give an attorney insight into how the courts look at specific situations. A 1996, unpublished opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals is worth reading. It is styled American Indemnity Company v. McFarland Insurance Agency. Here is some of the relevant information from that case that is worth knowing.

The insurance carrier, American Indemnity, in this case issued a Texas commercial package through McFarland which contained four different commercial coverages: fire and extended, glass, general liability, and inland marine. The insured purchased the inland marine to insure video equipment.

Exclusions In An Insurance Policy

November 15, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers need to know how “exclusions” in an insurance policy work. This is partially explained in a 1994, San Antonio Court of Appeals case. The style of the case is, Telepak v. United Service Automobile Association. Here is the relevant information from the case.

The question before the court concerned whether the insured or the insurer has the burden of proof as to the applicability of an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy. The court held that the applicability of an exception to an exclusion is a question of coverage, on which the insured has the burden of proof.

The insured brought a claim under an all-risk homeowner’s insurance policy for damage to their home. It is undisputed that the damage was incurred by the settling of the foundation. In its answer, the insurer pled the affirmative defense that “exclusion k” of the insurance policy excluded from coverage damage resulting from settling or cracking of the foundation. The insured asserted that the settling was caused by water which leaked from an air conditioner and escaped under the foundation of their home. They asserted that their loss fell under an exception to exclusion k, which stated that exclusion k would not apply to settling caused by accidental leakage from an air conditioning system. The jury charge read as follows:

What Happens When An Insurance Company Denies A Claim

November 13, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

The answer to the above question when asked of a Dallas insurance attorney will result in an answer of, “it depends.” There are many factors that come into play when trying to understand the consequences of the denial. The worst result for the claimant and best result for the insurance company might be that the insurance company does not have to pay anything on the claim.

The best result for the claimant and the worst for the insurance company might be what was reported by The Pennsylvania Record in an October 2014 article. The title of the article says it all, “Bad Faith Settlement With Allstate Awards $22 Million To Accident Victim.” Here is what the article tells us.

The rejection of a $250,000 claim has ultimately cost insurance giant Allstate $22 million following a settlement this week with the victim of a 2009 car accident. The agreement is the largest insurance bad faith settlement in Pennsylvania history, and the largest involving a motor vehicle accident in the nation, according to Ross Felley Casey, which represented the victim.

Denial Due To Late Payment

November 11, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Tarrant County insurance lawyers need to know the circumstances that will allow coverage when a late payment of premiums is in the picture and times when the late payment does not make a difference. A 2005, Amarillo Court of Appeals case is a good opinion to read. The style of the case is, Avila v. Loya. Here are some facts.

Avila brought this appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Loya. In her appeal, she asserts the trial court erred in granting its summary judgment because 1) issues of fact exist with regard to her claim of misrepresentations made under the Texas Insurance Code, and 2) issues of fact exist as to misrepresentations under 17.46(b)(12) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

Avila procured an auto insurance policy from Home State acting through the Agency, covering a policy period ending September 25, 2001, unless extended by the payment of a monthly premium. The policy contained a provision calling for the automatic termination of the policy if the insured failed to pay the continuation premium when it was due. Although a renewal notice was sent, the continuation premium was not paid by its due date. On September 28, 2001, Avila was involved in an automobile accident. On that same day, Avila’s daughter tendered a payment premium check to the Agency, the local agent of Home State. The check was accepted by the Agency which gave the daughter a liability insurance card that showed the period of Avila’s coverage with the effective date as 09/28/01 and the expiration date as 10/28/01.

Fraud In Insurance By Doctors

November 9, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Tarrant County Insurance Lawyers will see situations where a health insurer turns down claims. Those same attorneys sue health insurance companies for mis-treating claimants. The Insurance Journal ran a story that shows the doctors doing wrong. The title of the story is, N.Y. Doctor Found Guilty In Massive No-Fault Insurance Fraud Claim.

Authorities announced that a Brooklyn, New York-based doctor has been found guilty in a no-fault insurance fraud scheme following a two-week jury trial.

According to a statement Monday from Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Tatyana Gabinskaya was found guilty on Oct. 3 of various health care fraud and mail fraud offenses.

Who Is Insured Under An Insurance Policy

November 8, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mansfield insurance lawyers have to be able to read an insurance policy and advise a client about what the policy means. A 1998, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case shows how this court interpreted a policy. The style of the case is, Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Commercial Union. Here is some of the relevant information.

Sears and Weingarten Realty, Inc. (Weingarten) entered into a lease agreement whereby Sears was to lease space in a shopping center owned by Weingarten. Under the terms of the lease, Weingarten was obligated to maintain comprehensive public liability insurance protecting Sears against liability for injury to persons or property occurring in the common areas of the shopping center. The relevant provision of that lease is as follows:

The landlord further agrees to maintain in an insurance company qualified to do business in the State of Texas, Comprehensive Public Liability Insurance, including property damage, insuring Landlord and Tenant against liability for injury to persons or property occurring in or about the Common Areas on the Entire Premises or arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or occupancy thereof. The limits of liability under such insurance shall not be less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for death or bodily injury and for property damage.