Here is an interesting life insurance case that takes us down a different path as it relates to what happened.  This is a Memorandum Order issued by a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The case is styled, Delaware Life Insurance Company of New York v. Retirement Value, LLC.

This Order results from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 56, summary judgment motion in the context of a declaratory judgment action.

Here, Retirement Value moves for summary judgment on its counterclaim for declaratory relief.  That is, Retirement Value seeks a judgment declaring each of the following facts necessary to require Delaware Life Insurance Company of New York (Delaware Life) to pay Retirement Value the stated death benefits on two policies issued by Sun Life Insurance and Annuity Company of New York insuring the life of Lilly Segal (the Segal Policies”):

Bad Faith Insurance was a topic of discussion in this 2022, opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.  The opinion is styled, Michael Utley v. State Farm Lloyds.

Utley submitted a claim to his insurer, State Farm, for alleged hailstorm damage.  State Farm adjusted the claim asserting the damage did not exceed the deductible of $2,577.00.  Utley’s hired a public adjuster who asserted a damage estimate of $116,884.52.

Utley filed a lawsuit and asserted bad faith causes of action related to various violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

Exactly what is “bad faith” in the context of insurance claims?  This issue is addressed in a 2022 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The opinion is styled, Robert Casey v. State Farm Lloyd’s.
Casey sued State Farm over his dissatisfaction of his claim against his homeowners insurance policy issued by State Farm.  The lawsuit alleged various violations including, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  The facts can be gleamed from reading the case.  A motion for summary judgement case filed by State Farm.  The Court granted State Farm’s motion.
Under Texas law, an insurer has a duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured in the processing and payment of claims.  A breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is established when: (1) there is an absence of a reasonable basis for denying or delaying payment of benefits under the policy and (2) the carrier knew or should have known that there was not a reasonable basis for denying the claim or delaying payment of the claim.

Insurance claim denial cases will sometimes need an expert.  When this happens, an insurance lawyer needs to know what is required of an expert and how the courts look at experts.  This issue is discussed in a 2022 opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.  The opinion is styled, Laura Atkinson v. Meridian Security Insurance Company.

This case is an insurance dispute regarding a homeowners insurance policy.  The policy holder, Plaintiff Atkinson, is alleged to have suffered hailstorm damage and her insurer is Defendant, Meridian.  Plaintiff named an expert to testify about the improper claims handling by Meridian and Meridian moved to strike the expert.

Meridian first moves to strike the designation and testimony of Plaintiff’s retained expert Gary Johnson, arguing that Johnson’s opinions were not properly disclosed and fail to meet the reliability standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Lawyers who sue insurance companies need to understand the various legal ways cases end up in State Court or Federal Court.  As has been stated here many times, the insurance companies prefer Federal Court as a play ground for lawsuits.  The reasons are many but what is important to lawyers who sue insurance companies is knowing ways to keep a case out of Federal Court if the case they are handling is one they would prefer to keep in State Court.

A 2022 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, is a case worth reading.  The opinion is styled, Casey and Jared Davis v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company and Phillip Butler.

Plaintiffs were insured by Allstate and had a homeowners claim.  The claim was properly submitted and the adjuster assigned to the claim is Butler.  Plaintiffs sued Allstate and Butler alleging various violations of the Texas Insurance Code.  Allstate removed the case to Federal Court asserting that they accepted responsibility for Butler under Texas Insurance Code 542A.  The election of responsibility for Butler was filed in State Court but was removed prior to the State Court ruling on the filing.

Insurance Lawyers, here’s one you probably never heard about.  This is a 2022,case from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The opinion is styled, Emmy Von Der Ahe and Thomas Von Der Ahe v. 1-880-Pack-Rat, LLC and Zippy Shell Inc.  This case involves allegations that the moving company damaged goods.

While many people will think this is about insurance, it is not, but it’s importance is realizing that it is not or the lawyer can end up making a big mistake.  Here, the Ahes had purchased a “contents-protection policy insurance contract” at the time of the move.

The Ahes sued the Defendants in an amended complaint asserting a claim under the Carmack Amendment and violations of the DTPA, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  The Ahes assert the claim is in two phases, 10 the storage phase of the relationship, and 2) under the “contents-protection policy insurance contract.”

Bad Faith Insurance Attorneys need to read this 2022, opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals.  The case is styled, Texas Fair Plan Association v. Adil Ahmed.

The Blog from October 8, 2022, sets forth the law related to this Texas Prompt Payment of Claims fight.  The facts and procedural history of the case can be obtained from the opinion.

This is an appeal from summary judgment.

The Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act is at issue in this 2022, opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals.  The opinion is styled, Texas Fair Plan Association v. Adil Ahmed.

The facts and history of the case can be gleamed from reading the opinion.

This Courts’ stating of the law regarding the Texas Prompt Pay statute is what is relevant to this posting.

Here’s is another situation that a Life Insurance Claim Attorney will learn quickly.  It deals with life insurance beneficiaries and divorces.

This is a 1987 opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals.  It is styled, Novotny v. Wittner.  It stands for the proposition that a pre-divorce designation of a former spouse is invalidated upon divorce unless the spouse is re-designated after the divorce.  This opinion is now codified in Texas Family Code, Section 9.301.

This is an appeal from the award of insurance proceeds to the successor guardian of the decedent’s children.  The dispute over the ownership of the proceeds of the life insurance policy is between the decedent’s former wife, who was the named beneficiary on the policy, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, and the successor guardian of the decedent’s two children.  The decedent and Appellant were divorced twenty-one days before the decedent’s death.  Although the divorce decree awarded all insurance on decedent’s life to him as his sole and separate property, and divested Appellant of all interest in the policies, he had not yet changed the beneficiary designation on one policy.  The trial court found that the divorce decree terminated Appellant’s beneficial interest in the policy and awarded the proceeds to the decedent’s children.  The Court agreed.

Life Insurance Attorney will quickly learn about Texas Family Code, Section 9.301.  This sections says that a spouse named as a beneficiary in a life insurance policy is automatically excluded upon divorce.

One of the first cases that discusses this issue is a 1981, Eastland Court of Appeals opinion.  It is styled, Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Koch.  The opinion focuses on wording of the policy.  Be aware of exceptions to the general rule.

This is a declaratory judgment case.  Pilot Life Insurance Company sought a judgment declaring that it had no duty to pay life insurance proceeds to Lawrence A. Koch because of the death of his wife.  Pilot Life had issued a policy of group insurance to Koch’s employer.  The policy afforded life insurance coverage for employees and their eligible dependents. Eligible dependents were defined to include “your husband or wife, unless you were legally separated or divorced.”  Pilot Life alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were legally separated on the date of her death.

Contact Information