Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Occupying A Vehicle

April 5, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers in Dallas need to be able to tell a new client whether or not they have a claim worth pursuing. In 1963, the Waco Court of Appeals issued an opinion that insurance lawyers should know about. The style of the case is, Ferguson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. Here is the relevant information from that case.

Ferguson sued Aetna Casualty upon the ‘medical payments provision‘ of a policy issued upon her automobile. Such policy provided medical payments for the named insured who sustains ‘bodily injury, caused by accident, while occupying or through being struck by an automobile.’ The term ‘occupying’ is defined in the policy as meaning ‘in or upon or entering into or alighting from an automobile.’

Ferguson had been to the beauty parlor. She left the beauty parlor, came out onto the parking lot where she had left her automobile. In front of the beauty shop was a board that went out into the parking area. Parked alongside of this board at the end of it was ‘an automobile’. Ferguson walked to the end of the board and reached out and grabbed the door handle of the car to support herself. While holding onto the handle for support, she stepped off the board and went down into the mud, breaking both legs and suffering other injuries. The car Ferguson had hold of was not her own, and she was not in the act of entering such car; she was merely holding onto the handle for support as she walked around the car on her way to her own car, which was parked further down on the parking lot. However, if Ferguson was ‘in or upon, or entering or alighting from’ this particular car, she would be covered by the policies..

Impact With A Motor Vehicle?

April 3, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys handling auto claims involving auto insurance need to be aware of this case. It is a Texas Supreme Court case styled Nationwide Insurance Company v. Elchehimi. Here is some of the relevant information.

This breach of contract suit stems from the denial of coverage by Nationwide Insurance Company on a claim arising from a collision between insured Mohamad Elchehimi’s vehicle and an axle-wheel assembly separated from an unidentified semi-trailer truck. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Nationwide. Because there was no actual physical contact between Elchehimi’s vehicle and the unidentified truck as required by statute to trigger the uninsured motorist coverage, this court upheld that ruling.

Mohamad Elchehimi’s station wagon collided with a drive axle and attached tandem wheels that had separated from an eighteen-wheel semi-trailer truck. The unidentified truck, which was being driven in the opposite direction on a divided highway, did not stop. Momentum carried the axle-wheel assembly across the dividing median where it struck Elchehimi’s vehicle, injuring the occupants and damaging the car. Elchehimi had purchased from Nationwide a standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy, including the optional statutorily defined unidentified motorist coverage. Nationwide denied Elchehimi’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits because the impact between Elchehimi’s vehicle and the axle-wheel assembly was not “actual physical contact” with an unknown “motor vehicle” as required by the terms of the policy and the Texas Insurance Code.

Life Insurance And Interpleader

April 1, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance lawyers will have to deal with situations where the proceeds of a life insurance policy are interpleaded into the registry of a court. A February 2014, 14th Court of Appeals opinion dealt with this issue. The style of the case is, Branch v. Monumental Life Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

Monumental filed this interpleader to resolve competing claims to the proceeds of a $10,000 policy insuring the life of Archie Branch Sr. (“Archie”). The policy was obtained during Archie’s marriage to Loretta Young Branch (“Loretta”), and Loretta was the named beneficiary. Archie and Loretta divorced on May 3, 2011. Six weeks later, Archie died.

According to Loretta, she demanded the insurance proceeds as the named beneficiary, but Monumental refused payment. Monumental learned that a newspaper obituary identified five people as Archie’s children.

What Texas Thinks About Insurance Issues

March 30, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most Texas insurance lawyers already know what a recent Texas Watch poll tells us. Here are some of the results of the poll.

A statewide public opinion survey of 603 voters reveals widespread public support for protecting the right of a policyholder to hire an attorney to pursue their interests when they believe an insurance company hasunfairly denied, delayed or underpaid a legitimate claim. The survey was sponsored by Texas Watch, an Austin-based consumer advocacy group, and conducted by Hill Research Consultants, a nationally respected Republican opinion-research firm. In the field March 21-25,2013, and using a 25% “cell-phone only” household sample, results have a margin of error of +4.0%. To avoid biasing results, particular care was taken in crafting the survey questionnaire to objectively describe thecurrent legislative climate and regulatory structure, fairly represent both insurance-industry and consumer-rights positions, and rotate the order of questions and arguments presented. Key findings include intense voter agreement–across political, ideological and geographic lines–that…

•Insurance companies “routinely” deny or under pay legitimate claims and unnecessarily delay legal proceedings in the hope policyholders will simply give up before receiving what they are due–78% agree, 55% “strongly”

Insured’s Want To Be Able To Hire An Attorney And Access The Courts

March 29, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance attorneys will be encouraged to read a recent report from Texas Watch. Texas Watch is a consumer advocate group that deals with insurance issues.

A February 14, 2013, press release tells us the following:

SPECIAL INTEREST PAC JUST CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH Access to the civil justice system is a fundamental right. It is embedded in our constitution because no one is above the law and everyone should be held to account for their actions.

Notice To Lien Holder Of Cancellation

March 27, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will come across situations where a claim is denied based on the policy having been cancelled for one reason or another. But what if there is a lien holder and the lien holder is not notified of the policy cancellation.

That was the issue in a February 2014, opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The style of the case is Molly Properties, Incorporated v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

The insurer, The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati Insurance”), issued a policy that covered a commercial property owned by the insured, Molly Properties, Incorporated (“Molly Properties”). After the policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums, a fire damaged the covered property. Upon the denial of its claim for property damage, Molly Properties sued Cincinnati Insurance for breach of contract. The district court held that the policy was no longer in effect when the fire occurred, and granted summary judgement to the insurer. Molly Properties contended that the district court erred when it found that the policy had been cancelled at the time of the fire because Cincinnati Insurance failed to give notice to the mortgagee on the property before it cancelled the insurance, as required by the policy. This court affirmed that ruling.

Insurance Complaints And Delays

March 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys who handle insurance claims will generally know what is going on within the insurance industry. While most claims are handled properly and an insurance attorney never hears about those that are handled properly, it is the ones that are not handled properly that come to the attention of insurance attorneys.

The Insurance Journal published an article in early 2014, told of insurance complaints being filed in Texas. Here is the title of the article, “Insurer Group: Texas Auto, Homeowner Complaints at a record Low.” Here is what the article tells us.

“In 2013, Texas drivers and homeowners filed the fewest number of complaints against their insurance companies since the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) began keeping records, the Insurance Council of Texas reports.

Courts Interpreting Insurance Law

March 23, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attorneys handling insurance cases need to keep up with developments in the law. The Insurance Journal published an article worth reading on February 3, 2014. Here is what it tells us.

On Jan. 17, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court in Ewing Construction Company v. Amerisure Insurance Co. issued another surprising and controversial decision in a construction defect coverage case.

For many years the Texas Supreme Courts had largely been a model of restrained and plain-meaning interpreter of insurance policies. While there were anomalies, such as the broadly criticized Mid-Continent v. Liberty Mutual, where the longstanding practices of carrier contribution were undermined, the Court still steered a generally reasonable course in protecting the rights of policyholders and carriers.

Force Placed Insurance

March 22, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Force-place insurance is a very mis-understood type of insurance. What most people do not understand that force-place insurance protects the mortgage owner only. A homeowner does not have his own interests protected.

Reuters ran an article on February 6, 2014, titled, “Citi T Pay $110 mln in a Lawsuit Over Force-placed Insurance.” Here is what it tells us.

Citigroup Inc has agreed to pay $110 million to thousands of homeowners who were forcibly charged expensive property insurance premiums, a court filing showed, as several U.S. banks and insurers were criticized by regulators over such practices.

Vehicle Insurance Policies

March 20, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance law lawyers need to be able to distinguish cases where they can help someone and cases where they cannot. Understanding how courts look at different situations is important. A 1992, Texas Supreme Court is a good case to know. The style of the case is, LeLeaux v. Hampshire-Fannett ISD. Here is some of the relevant information.

Monica LeLeaux, a sixteen-year-old high school junior, hit her head while trying to close the back door of a school bus. She and her mother sued the owner of the bus, the Hamshire-Fannett Independent School District, and the bus driver for damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.

Monica’s accident occurred on a school band trip, the events of which are summarize here based solely upon Monica’s deposition testimony. She and the other band members had traveled in school buses to another school to compete in a marching contest. Once they finished, Monica and some of her schoolmates, along with the band director, stayed to watch other bands perform. At some point Monica returned to the bus she had ridden to the contest. The bus was parked and empty, and the rear emergency door was open. Monica did not open it, and she does not know who did. She and a friend, J.R. Thompson, sat together on pillows in the rear doorway of the bus, dangling their feet out the back, talking. No one else was in the bus while they were there.