Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

Dallas insurance lawyers might one day have this to deal with.

The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1975, styled Allen v. Manhatten Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Here is some relevant information.

This is a suit on an insurance policy in which the Allen sued his insurance carrier, Manhatten, on the grounds that the destruction of his tank truck was caused by an ‘explosion’ within the terms of the insurance policy. Trial was to the Court without a jury and a take-nothing judgment was entered. This court sustained the judgment.

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys might? run across this situation.

This is an opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals that was issued in 1965. The style of the case is, Great American Insurance Co. v. Lane.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Great American’s motion was overruled. Lane’s motion was sustained. This court agreed with the decision of the trial court.

Mineral Wells lawyers will at some point have someone ask about coverage on an insurance policy where the loss seems to have been caused by wear and tear. Back in 1952, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case styled, Republic Casualty Co. v. Mayfield.

Here is what was stated in that case.

Suit was brought in the County Court at Law by W. B. Mayfield, against Republic Casualty Company, for loss sustained by him which he claims to have been covered under the terms of a certain automobile policy issued by the Republic.

Palo Pinto County attorneys might find this opinion regarding collision coverage interesting. The style of the case is, Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Koenig, and it is a 1953 case from the Galveston Court of Appeals. Here is some of the relevant background.

This was a suit by the owner of an automobile against his insurance carrier for the damages to his automobiles, less the deductible, occasioned by a collision with a rock on the roadbed. That collision was alleged to have knocked the drain-plug out from the underside of the vehicle, resulting in the loss of oil, and burning and scoring the motor.

After Calvert denied liability, Koenig sued for the cost of such repairs, less the deductible amount.

Aledo attorneys might want to know this 1955 case from the Waco Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Home Service Casualty Co. v. Barry. It’s opinion discusses some of the coverage under the collision portion of a Texas auto policy.

Here is some of the relevant information.

This case is grounded on the collision provisions in a policy of insurance covering a truck.