Weatherford insurance attorneys need to know the various ways courts look at what it means to be “occupying” a vehicle when making a claim for benefits by way of an auto insurance policy.
One of those ways is discussed in the 1972, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Hart v. Traders & General Insurance Company.
Here is some relevant information about this case.
Dallas insurance attorneys have to understand one important provision in most auto insurance policies that provide uninsured and underinsured (UM) protection.
That important provision is the requirement that the insured party obtain written permission from the UM provider before the insured party settles with a responsible third party. This requirement to obtain written permission was upheld in the 1993, Houston Court of Appeals [1 Dist.] case, United States Fire Insurance Company v. Millard.
This case is a writ of mandamus.
Mineral Wells insurance lawyers need to know how a “loss of consortium” claim works as it regards insurance.
The 1987 Texas Supreme Court opinion styled McGovern v. Williams helps a person to understand how this type of claim. Here is some relevant information.
This cause concerns the liability of an insurance company under an automobile liability policy. Robert McGovern and wife, Ella Jo, sued respondent Linda Kay Williams for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Mr. McGovern sued for personal injuries and Mrs. McGovern, who was not involved in the accident, sued for loss of consortium. Respondent State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer for Ms. Williams, intervened and tendered $10,000 as full payment of its policy limits. The trial court determined that $10,000 was the applicable policy limit and, after accepting the tender, released and discharged State Farm from any further liability. Ms. Williams’ insurance policy with State Farm insured Ms. Williams to the extent of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence for bodily injury claims. State Farm tendered $10,000 pursuant to the “per person” policy limit. Mrs. McGovern disputed the amount of the tender, contending that she and Mr. McGovern were each entitled to $10,000 in insurance proceeds and that State Farm’s obligation was $20,000. The trial court held State Farm was not obligated to pay the damages sustained by Mr. and Mrs. McGovern in excess of the $10,000 limit. The trial court accordingly accepted State Farm’s tender of $10,000 and released State Farm from any further liability. The trial court also rendered judgment against Ms. Williams in favor of Mrs. McGovern for $10,000.
Fort Worth lawyers need to be able to answer the above question properly when dealing with a coverage issue in an insurance policy.
Here is what the Texas Supreme Court said in a 1999 case. The style of the case is, MidCentury Insurance Company of Texas v. Lindsey.
Here is some relevant information.
Arlington insurance attorneys need to know how Texas courts interpret insurance policies. The 1971, case of Futrell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. is an example of this. The opinion was issued by the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.].
This is a lawsuit for medical payment benefits under an automobile insurance policy. The insured sued the insurer for medical expenses incurred by his minor son, who was injured while riding a motorbike when it collided with a motorcycle. Futrell contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a motorcycle is not an automobile within the meaning of that term as it is used in the medical payments coverage of the Texas family combination automobile insurance policy .
The parties filed this stipulation as to the facts of the case:
Parker County lawyers need to know how the liability limits in an auto policy work. The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1989, that explains this pretty well. The style of the case is, Manriquez v. MidCentury Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment emanating from a wrongful death suit. This appeals court affirmed the decision.
Appellants are the widow and surviving parents of a pedestrian killed when struck by an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor, Gregory Daniel Alkofer. In addition to suing Gregory for negligent driving, his mother, Barbara, was sued for negligent entrustment; and both were charged with gross negligence.
Tarrant County insurance lawyers need to understand how the limits in an auto liability policy work.
A good case that explains how auto liability limits work is American States Insurance Company of Texas v. Arnold. This is a 1996 Dallas Court of Appeals case. The facts are a little confusing but here goes:
Eoline Smith Arnold was involved in a two-car collision while driving an automobile owned by Bessie M. Mayes and in which Mayes was a passenger. Mayes’s vehicle struck another vehicle driven by Michael Rhodes and in which Michael Cassady was a passenger. Both Cassady and Rhodes were injured. Mayes was killed in the accident.
Dallas insurance attorneys know that misrepresentations in insurance are essentially the same as misrepresentations in any other area of law.
The Texas Supreme Court told us in 1990, that a false representation must involve an existing or past material fact, rather than a statement of opinion, judgment, probability, or expectation in order to constitute actionable fraud. This is from the case styled, DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.
The Tyler Court of Appeals in 1978, said that statements concerning future contingent events, sales talk, “puffing,” and other similar statements are not considered actionable misrepresentations. The Tyler case is styled, Hicks v. Wright.
Dallas insurance attorneys who deal with homeowners claims are usually going to have some familiarity with forced-placed insurance policies.
Most people will not ever have to deal with forced placed policies, but if you do, it can be a nightmare.
Forced place insurance is an insurance policy taken out by a lender or creditor when a customer does not carry insurance on an asset. The charges for this insurance are passed on to the customer.
Dallas insurance attorneys need to read this Corpus Christi Court of Appeals opinion regarding pain and suffering in an injury case. The opinion was issued in September of 2013, in the case styled Schaffer v. Nationwide. This was a claim for underinsured motorist benefits.
Here is some relevant background information.
Schaffer’s underinsured benefits claims against Nationwide were tried to a jury. The issue at trial was whether Lovins’s negligence was the cause of the accident and whether and what damages Schaffer suffered as a result of the accident. After the close of evidence, the jury was questioned as to whose negligence caused the accident. The jury answered that both Lovins’s and Schaffer’s negligence were proximate causes of the accident. The jury then apportioned responsibility for the accident, finding that Lovins was seventy-five percent responsible and Schaffer was twenty-five percent responsible. Finally, the jury was questioned as to damages. The jury awarded zero damages for past and future physical pain, past and future earning capacity, past and future physical impairment, and future medical expenses. The jury awarded Schaffer $257,131.41 for past medical expenses. Schaffer filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury’s zero-damages awards for physical pain, earning capacity, and physical impairment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
