Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Forwarding Lawsuit Papers To The Insurance Company

May 27, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance lawyers should advise their clients to forward any lawsuit papers they receive to their insurance company immediately upon receipt. A 1954, Amarillo Court of Appeals case illustrates this. The style of the case is, Klein v. Century Lloyds. Here is some of the relevant information from that case.

Howard Klein and daughter, Mary Genevieve Klein, were injured in an automobile collision with Charles Gunter, a 21-year old man employed as a rough-neck in the oil fields. Century Lloyds, is the insurer of Charles Gunter. The Kleins after obtaining a judgment against Charles Gunter in amount $10,799.51, sought a recovery of the same against Century as his insurer. The trial court disregarded the findings of the jury as detailed hereinafter and entered judgment for Century.

The record reveals that Gunter failed to notify Century, his insurer, in writing of the occurrence of the accident until approximately 31 days had elapsed thereafter. It is an undisputed fact and stipulated by the parties to this appeal that no copy of the citation served upon Gunter in Cause No. 1012 was ever forwarded to Century.

Injuries To An Insured

May 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Benbrook attorneys handling insurance claims need to know about this case dealing with a home owners policy. It is a 2000, case from the Austin Court of Appeals styled Easter v. Providence Lloyds Ins. Co. Here is some relevant information.

Bonnie Easter was having a difficult time dealing with the emotional and behavioral problems her daughter M.D.E. was exhibiting, and in February 1995 she placed M.D.E. in the care of Joseph and Grace Bossette, licensed foster parents. M.D.E. was nine years old at the time. Easter intended the placement to be for no more than six months.

Soon after M.D.E.’s arrival in the Bossettes’ home, Joseph Bossette began sexually molesting her. After approximately five months, M.D.E. reported the abuse to Child Protective Services. She was removed from the Bossettes’ home and returned to her mother. In February 1996, Easter brought suit on M.D.E.’s behalf against Joseph Bossette for an intentional tort for committing the abuse, and against Grace Bossette for negligence for failing to stop or report the molestation. A default judgment was rendered against the Bossettes for $300,000. Easter then brought the present action against Providence Lloyds to enforce the judgment against the Bossettes’ homeowners’ insurance carrier.

Intentional Acts Exclusion – Sexual Molestation

May 24, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys in Weatherford who handle insurance claims need to be aware of the exclusions that apply to home owners policy. One of those exclusions is an exclusion for intentional acts. The courts have interpreted sexual molestation to be an intentional act as a matter of law. The 1996, Houston Court of Appeals case, J.E.M. v. Fidelity & Casualty Company is the case to know about. Here is some of the relevant information.

Fidelity issued a standard homeowner’s policy to the home owners. The policy included coverage for personal liability, but excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured or to sickness or disease transmitted through sexual contact.

J.E.M. and S.J.B. sued the home owners. The petition alleges that James B. sexually abused his stepdaughter, J.E.M., in 1977, 1978, and 1979. The petition also alleges that James B. sexually abused his step-grandson, J.B., Jr., during December 1990, and that the sexual abuse was “either intentional torts or the result of uncontrolled sexual urges brought about by an underlying psychosexual disorder.” The petition states that James B. “was negligent in failing to inform other responsible adults of his conduct, in failing to seek professional held, and in continuing to allow himself to be alone with his stepdaughter and step-grandson.”

Intentional Acts Exclusion – Shooting

May 22, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers in the Dallas and Fort Worth area need to have an understanding as to intentional acts that are not covered under an insurance policy. Many times the only way to actually recover money for a clients injuries such as medical bills, lost wages, pain, etc. is to have an insurance policy to recover under. Being aware of this Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] case is important. It is a 1992 case styled, Bonner v. United Services Automobile Association. Here is some relevant information.

This is an appeal from a take nothing judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA). The issue involved is whether a Texas Homeowner’s Insurance Policy issued by USAA to Gloria Padgett provided liability coverage to her son, Roger Padgett, for damages for the death of Roger’s girlfriend, Linda Tarrant, or whether there was no coverage for such death because of specific exclusions contained in the policy.

The insurance policy involved in this case is a Texas Standard Homeowners Policy issued by USAA to Gloria C. Padgett, mother of Roger Padgett. The premises covered by the policy is defined as a dwelling located at Route 3, Box 5388, Canyon Lake, Comal County, Texas. The Liability Section of the policy provides under coverage D that USAA will pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury. That same Liability Section of the policy also contains the following exclusion:

Intentional Acts And Intoxication

May 20, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Palo Pinto County insurance lawyers will need to be aware of this case from the Dallas Court of Appeals. It is a 1997, case styled, Wessinger v. Fire Insurance Exchange. Here is some of the relevant information.

Morrison initially sued Wessinger in a Dallas County district court, 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.

Fire Insurance Exchange, Wessinger’s homeowner’s insurance company, then filed this declaratory judgment action challenging coverage for the incident made the basis of Morrison’s original lawsuit.

Life Insurance – Misrepresentation As To Net Worth

May 18, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

A trial result regarding the above issue is something a Dallas Fort Worth insurance lawyer wants to know.

An opinion from the Houston Court of Appeals (14th Dist.) deals with this issue. The style of the case Vasquez v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co. Here is the relevant information.

In March 2008, Russell Mackert and Beatrice Ramon submitted an application with ReliaStar for insurance on the life of Ramon, seeking an initial term of ten years for an amount of $2.5 million. The application named the Trust as the proposed beneficiary and owner of the policy and Mackert as trustee. The asserted purpose of the Trust was “Estate Conservation.” Mackert and Ramon also represented in the application that Ramon’s total net worth was $2.4 million, her annual interest and other income was $150,000, and she had never declared bankruptcy. Mackert and Ramon signed the application acknowledging that ReliaStar may seek to rescind coverage due to material misrepresentations.

Flood Insurance Information

May 17, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas County insurance attorneys will have ways to keep themselves informed about what is going on in the insurance industry. The Insurance Journal is a good source for keeping up with the latest information.

“President Obama Signs Flood Insurance Relief Bill” is the title of a recent article published by the Insurance Journal. Here is what it tells us.

Homeowners living in flood-prone areas are getting relief from big spikes in insurance costs under legislation President Barack Obama signed into law last Friday.

Insurance Claims – Proving Damages

May 15, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lake Worth insurance lawyers need to know this case. It is a 1971 opinion issued by the Texas Supreme Court. It’s style is, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. McKillip. Here is the relevant information.

Troy L. McKillip and wife brought this action against the Travelers Indemnity Co. to recover for damages to their poultry house under the terms of a policy of insurance issued by that Company. After a trial to a jury, respondents were awarded a recovery for $7,450.

The insureds were the owners of a turkey farm in Eastland County, which included two sheet metal buildings and a wooden building used as conditioning houses for breeder turkeys. The one damaged building was of steel truss type construction, 408 feet long by 40 feet wide. The other two buildings, located some distance from the damaged building, were undamaged. The second building was essentially of the same construction as the damaged building and was some fifty feet shorter. The third building was of wooden construction.

Segregating Losses On Insurance Claim

May 13, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Saginaw insurance lawyers need to know about this insurance case. The case is a 1999, San Antonio Court of Appeals case styled, Wallis v. United Services Automobile Association. Here is the relevant information.

In the spring of 1993, the Wallises noticed evidence of foundation damage in their home. Suspecting such damage was caused by a plumbing leak, the Wallises filed a claim under their homeowner’s policy. Through its investigation, USAA determined that the foundation damage was caused by a combination of several excluded perils under the Wallises’ policy, including settlement, poor surface drainage, the topography of the lot, and surrounding vegetation. Plumbing leaks, which are covered perils, were also detected; however, based on soil testing and continued earth settlement following repair of the Wallises’ plumbing system, USAA concluded that the leaks were negligible and had not caused or contributed to the complained-of damage. USAA believed improper compaction of the fill dirt upon which the Wallises’ foundation rests was the primary source of the problem. Elevation tests indicated that the Wallises’ home, which was built upon a sloping lot, had settled as much as fifteen inches on the low end of the hill where soil was placed to create a plane for the foundation. In short, USAA’s investigation revealed that the Wallises’ home was sliding down the lot. Experts for the Wallises did not refute USAA’s evidence regarding the excluded perils. They did, however, challenge the conclusion drawn regarding the effect of the plumbing leaks, and claimed instead that the leaks could not be excluded as a contributing cause of the damage.

At trial, the jury was asked to determine whether “earthquake, landslide, or earth movement,” perils excluded under exclusion k of the policy, caused the Wallises’ damage. The jury was also charged under question two of the charge with determining whether “accidental discharge, leakage, or overflow of water from within a plumbing system” contributed to the Wallises’ damage. The jury answered both questions affirmatively and, under question three, found that thirty-five percent of the Wallises’ damage was caused by plumbing leaks.

Child Support And Insurance Claims

May 11, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance attorneys already know there are situations where a settlement with an insurance company has to, in part, go to satisfying out-standing child support liens.

Under Texas Family Code, Section 157.317(a), a lien for unpaid child support attaches to the child support obligor’s personal injury claim. This lien is inferior to that of a health care provider with a valid lien, and a child support lien does not attach to the injured party / child support obligor’s attorney fees in the personal injury case. Actual notice of the lien is required for enforcement. These liens arise by operation of law and attach to all of the obligor’s property, as well as to an injury claim. Texas Family Code, Sections 157.261(a) and 157.312(d) make this clear.

Child support liens may be filed with the County Clerk in the county where the injury suit is filed, the county where the divorce (or suit in the interest of the child) originated, or in the county of the child support obligor’s residence. Child support isn’t just for dads, either; a court may order either or both parents to pay support pursuant to Texas Family Code, Section 154.001.