Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

The Meaning Of Explosion In An Auto Policy

November 16, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Is A Falling Object A Collision

November 14, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Wear And Tear And Insurance Coverage

November 12, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Collision Coverage

November 10, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

What Does Collision Coverage Cover?

November 9, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Insurance And Bad Repairs

November 7, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells attorneys might be interested in knowing about this case. It is a 2008. Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] opinion styled, Walker v. Travelers Indemnity Co. In this case the trial court granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of Travelers and Walker appealed and filed a motion for sanctions.

Walker purchased a new 2003 automobile for $39,664.20. From the date of its purchase, the automobile was insured by Travelers under a standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy. Less than four months after the purchase, a tree fell on the automobile during a rainstorm. The automobile sustained interior and exterior damage and was towed to Independent Body Paint Shop. While Walker filed a claim and demanded that the automobile be totaled, Travelers determined that the automobile could be restored and elected to repair it. Although Independent Body performed certain repairs on the automobile, it was not restored to its pre-accident condition, and Walker requested additional policy benefits.

When Travelers refused additional policy benefits, Walker sued for breach of contract and extra-contractual claims.

Settlement Without Consent

November 5, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers have to know about this case. The case is styled Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds. It is a 1994, Texas Supreme Court case. Here is some relevant information.

In this cause, the court considered whether an insurer may deny an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim on the basis of a “settlement without consent” exclusion clause absent any showing that the settlement prejudiced the insurer. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the insureds. The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that the insureds had violated their insurance contract by settling with the underinsured motorist without the insurer’s consent. This court held that an insurer may escape liability on the basis of a settlement-without-consent exclusion only when the insurer is actually prejudiced by the insured’s settlement with the tortfeasor.

This case was tried on the following stipulated facts. On November 21, 1987, Elizabeth Hernandez was killed when the car in which she was a passenger flipped over. The sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the car, Charles McCullough, Jr. At the time of the accident, McCullough was nineteen years old and his only asset was a $25,000 liability policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Elizabeth Hernandez was covered by her parents’ insurance policy with Gulf Group Lloyds. That policy included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000. The damages suffered by Elizabeth Hernandez and her parents exceeded $125,000.

Indirect Physical Contact Of Autos

November 3, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be know this case. It is a 1972, Houston Court of Appeals [1st District] case styled, Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in a suit for damages brought under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy. The decisive question on this appeal concerns the proper interpretation of the ‘hit-and-run automobile’ coverage included in the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.

Sarah Latham and Nora Carter, alleged that while their car was stopped in a line of traffic in obedience to the command of a police officer, a car immediately behind them was struck from the rear by a pick-up truck and propelled into their automobile. As a result of this collision they suffered personal injuries. The pick-up truck left the scene of the accident, and neither the driver nor the owner of the truck can be identified.

Physical Contact Requirement

November 2, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Tarrant County insurance lawyers should understand the “physical contact” requirement in an auto insurance policy that provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.

This requirement was the issue in the 1995, Texas Supreme Court case, Republic Insurance Company v. Stoker. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is a summary judgment case granted against Republic. The case arises out of a multiple car accident in which the Stokers’ automobile struck the rear end of another vehicle. It is undisputed that an unidentified pickup truck dropped a load of furniture on the highway, causing a chain reaction collision. Also, it is undisputed that this truck was not struck by any of the vehicles involved in the collision. The Stokers had no collision insurance and, therefore, submitted a claim to recover under their uninsured/underinsured vehicle coverage with Republic.

What Is A Motor Vehicle

October 31, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys will be called on by potential clients to discuss how an insurance policy is interpreted. Especially so when a claim is denied.

As it relates to the use of the term “motor vehicle” in an insurance policy, the 1985, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Western Insurance Companies v. Andrus is good to look at for guidance. Here is some background information.

Here, Western Insurance is appealing from a judgment in favor of Andrus and complains of the trial court failure to grant it’s motion for judgment non obstante.