Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

What Does It Mean To Be Occupying A Vehicle

October 29, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Written Consent To Settle

October 27, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Loss Of Consortium

October 26, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

What Is An Accident?

October 24, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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.

Auto Policy Coverage

October 22, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

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: