Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Federal Court And Insurance Lawsuits

December 3, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys usually want to stay out of Federal Court because it is usually better for their clients to remain in State Court. The United States District Court, Dallas Division issued an opinion in September 2013, that is worth reading. The style of the case is Ridgeview Presbyterian Church v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This concerns a Motion To Remand.

This case involves an insurance claim filed after a storm damaged Ridgeview’s building. Ridgeview alleges that its insurance carrier, Philadelphia Indemnity acted in concert with an independent adjusting company, Crawford and a licensed adjuster, Lumpkin, to breach the insurance agreement and commit bad faith.

Providing Notice Of Claim To Insurance Company

December 1, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to tell their clients to immediately report it to their insurance company when they are served with lawsuit papers. A 1995, Texas Supreme Court case styled, Harwell v. State Farm illustrates why.

Here is some of the relevant information from the Harwell opinion.

On December 5, 1986, Tammy D. Hubbard and Eric Christopher Leatherman were in an automobile accident. The collision killed Hubbard and seriously injured Leatherman. Hubbard was insured by State Farm under her mother’s policy.

Modifications To Insurance Policy

November 30, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys understand that the way an insurance policy is interpreted is key to whether there is coverage and the extent of that coverage.

The Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] issued an opinion last month that dealt with policy interpretation. The style of the case is, Shafaii Children’s Trust and Party and Reception Center, Inc. v. West American Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and America First Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is a summary judgment case that was in favor of the insurance companies and Shafaii appealed.

Life insurance Reinstatement

November 28, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to read this opinion just issued from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Cardenas v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company.

This case arises from United of Omaha Life Insurance Company’s denial of Cardenas’s claim for benefits from a life insurance policy taken out by Cardenas’s daughter, Elvia Sierra. The policy lapsed and was subsequently reinstated; Sierra died thirteen months after the reinstatement. As required by the Texas Insurance Code, the policy contained a provision that it would become incontestable if it remained in force “for two years from its date of issue during the lifetime of the insured.” Although the policy does not have a provision dealing with contestability following reinstatement, the parties agree there is such a period. They differ over how the death of the insured during the contestability period will affect the reinstatement. The district court found that the reinstated policy never became incontestable because Sierra died before the two-year period ran. Cardenas argues that a section of the Texas Administrative Code controls and requires finding that the reinstated policy became incontestable.

United of Omaha Life issued a life insurance policy to Cardenas’s daughter, Elvia Sierra, on March 26, 2001. The policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums in June 2005.

Uninsured Motorist Claim And Prompt Payment

November 26, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington attorneys who handle uninsured and underinsured cases need to be aware of this decision issued by the United States District Court, Houston Division. The decision was issued in September 2013, and is styled, Terry v. Safeco Insurance Company of America. Here is some of the relevant information.

The Terrys were involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver. In a letter from counsel dated November 20, 2009, the Terrys demanded benefits under their UM coverage. This letter stated that “Mr. Terry was willing to settle his claim for $20,000.00 and Ms. Terry was willing to settle her claim for $35,000.00.” The letter stated that the demands were “for an unconditional release of any further liability related to the incident made the basis of this potential lawsuit” and cautioned that the “offer would remain open for a period of ten days from” receipt. The letter also stated that “all written offers would be reviewed” with the Terrys but warned that “any written offer which is less than the latest written demand should be considered rejected in advance for the purposes of calculating prejudgment interest.”

In a letter dated December 4, 2009, Safeco acknowledged receipt and stated that the “demand to settle Jack Terry’s Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury (UMBI) claim for $20,000 … must be declined and the demand to settle Mary Eden Terry’s UMBI claim for $35,000 must be declined.” After asserting that Jack Terry was 15% at fault for the accident and summarizing the Terrys’ medical bills, Safeco’s letter stated: Considering the negligence on Mr.Terry’s part and the PIP offset of $2,500 (previously paid) and the reasonable net medical bills of $5,408.92, my offer to settle Mr. Terry’s UMBI claim is $6,300.

Insurance Cases In Federal Court

November 24, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers will usually try to keep their lawsuits in the local State and County courts. Insurance companies will try to have the cases removed to Federal Court.

The United States District Court in McAllen, Texas, issued a ruling on September 17, 2013, in the case styled, Guerrero Investments LLC v. American States Insurance Company, et al, wherein the defendants had the case removed to Federal Court and the plaintiffs tried to have the case remanded to State Court.

Here is what the case tells us.

Insurance Lawyer And Federal Court

November 23, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers in Dallas can tell you that an insurance company that has been sued would prefer to litigate in Federal Court rather than State Court. Here is a case to keep in mind when trying to stay in out of Federal Court.

This case is out of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division. The style is, Bil-Sonic Trading Co., Inc. v. America First Insurance Company, et al, and the opinion was issued in 2013.

In this case, Bil-Sonic sued three defendants in State Court and the defendants had the court removed to Federal Court claiming the suit against was one defendant, Mason, was a fraudulent joiner solely for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Bil-Sonic filed papers attempting to have the case removed back to State Court.

Reasons For An Insurance Lawyer

November 21, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas / Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to know how to properly plead a lawsuit and here is a case worth reading.

The case is styled Radenbaugh v. State Farm Lloyds. It is a 2013, opinion from the U.S. District Court, Northern District, Fort Worth Division.

The case tells us Radenbaugh initiated this action in State District Court by the filing of a complaint asserting five causes of action against State Farm–breach of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”). State Farm removed the case to this Federal Court. The Federal Court ordered that the pleading be amended to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Court of Civil Procedure and Rule 9, if applicable.

Notice Of Claim

November 19, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers will always tell a client to inform the client’s insurance company as soon as possible when a claim arises. A 2006, Dallas Court of Appeals case illustrates a good reason for doing so. The style of the case is, Blanton v. Vesta Lloyds Insurance Company.

This is a suit for declaratory judgment concerning insurance coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Vista and this court sustained that finding and cited the following as justification.

In June 1997, Blanton leased certain property to Justin Burgess to operate a retail store of “one-of-a-kind restored art-deco furniture and related items.”

Salvage Title Under Auto Policy

November 17, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers might run into this type of strange situation and if they do, they will be glad they have this opinion to reference.

It is a 2004, case from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] and is styled Hamby v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s judgment sustaining State Farm’s second special exceptions to Hamby’s pleadings, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Hamby, and dismissing the cause. In his sole issue, Hamby contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his case because an insurer cannot force an insured to transfer title to a “totaled” vehicle as a condition of paying the insured the actual cash value of the vehicle. This court affirmed the trial court.