Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

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.