Grand Prairie insurance lawyers who deal with auto insurance need to know how the courts treat cases dealing with “implied permission” in a car insurance situation.
A 1967, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case is still good law on this issue. The style of the case is, The Phoenix Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company.
Here is some of the relevant information.
Parker County lawyers need to know how the courts interpret “permissive driver” in an insurance policy.
A 1989, Dallas Court of Appeals case gives good guidance for answering this question. The style of the case is, United States Fire Insurance Company v. United Service Automobile Association. Here is some of the relevant information.
The underlying liability lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred when Anna was riding back with Douglas Martin from a church sponsored retreat. The car Douglas was driving was owned by his father and was covered by the U.S. Fire policy. Douglas testified that there was some swerving and horseplay prior to the accident. Anna testified that Douglas was zigzagging the wheel back and forth prior to the accident and that she grabbed the wheel on two occasions prior to the accident in an effort to play back with him. The first time Douglas did not object, and the second time was immediately prior to the accident. Anna testified that she and Douglas were “just kind of playing around.” Deposition excerpts are made a part of the record pursuant to stipulations. Anna brought suit against Douglas for injuries she sustained in the accident. Douglas counterclaimed against Anna for his injuries. This counterclaim gives rise to the dispute regarding the duty to defend. The relevant portion of Douglas’s counterclaim states as follows:
A Grand Prairie insurance attorney needs to be able to distinguish between legitimate requests for information by an insurance company and requests that are not so necessary for their investigation of a claim.
The Prompt Payment of Claims Act allows the insurance company to request information it reasonably believes will be required. Deadlines are then postponed while they wait for this information from the claimant. An unreasonable request by an insurance company will not postpone any deadlines and thus lead the insurance company to violate the statute regarding deadlines.
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2000, that provides so pretty good guidance on this issue. The style of the case is, Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company v. Valdez. Here is some relevant information.
Dallas insurance lawyers and for that matter, almost all attorneys are going to be able to discuss with a client the various rules and statutes that allow for recovery of attorney fees in cases.
The Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Chapter 38, is the first rule most attorneys will learn about regarding recovery of attorney fees.
Section 38.001 tells us that a person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees from an individual or corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for:
Dallas insurance lawyers are probably already aware of some of the penalties and remedies available when an insurance company violates the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.
Section 542.061, should be known and read by all insurance attorneys. It says:
“The remedies provided by this subchapter are in addition to any other remedy or provision provided by law or at common law.”
Fort Worth insurance lawyers would know the penalties available when an insurance company does not promptly pay a claim.
The Prompt Payment of Claims Act provides for 18% per annum damages, in addtion to the amount of the claim, plus attorney fees, plus this is on top of other types of remedies that may be available.
Section 542.060 says:
Tarrant County Insurance lawyers should be able to give you a response to the above question.
The first place to look for guidance is the Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.057(a). This section requires payment by the fifth business day after the claim is accepted by all insurance companies except surplus lines insurance companies. Surplus lines insurance companies have 20 business days to make payment.
The 1998, case Daugherty v. American Motorists Insurance Company is from the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] and has held that oral notice that the insurance company intends to pay the claim is not sufficient.
Tarrant County attorneys who handle insurance cases need to understand the rules related to the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.
Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.056(c) says “If the insurer rejects the claim, the notice required by Subsection (a) or (b) must state the reasons for the rejection.” Arguably, an insurance company that fails to comply with this requirement could be held to have waived additional reasons that were not timely raised. However, this argument was rejected in a 2005, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case. That court stated that the insurance company could raise an additional defense, where there was no allegation that the initial reason was unreasonable or made in bad faith.
Here is something to think about:
Dallas County insurance attorneys will understand the responsibilities of an insurance company to accept or reject an insurance claim.
Usually the first thing an experience Insurance Law Attorney will ask of a potential new client who says their claim has been denied, is a copy of the rejection letter.
Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.056(a), is the statute that requires an insurance company to give written notice it is accepting or rejecting a claim. A telephone call from the insurance adjuster notifying the claimant of the amount of the loss will not constitute “notice of payment of claim,” because the statute requires that the acceptance or rejection be in writing. This was an issue that went against the insurance company in the Houston, 14th District, Court of Appeals case styled, Daugherty v. American Motorists Insurance Company. Further, the insurance company’s written response acknowledging only that a claim has been received does not constitute an acceptance or rejection under the statute. This was made clear in the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case styled, Northern County Mutual Insurance Company v. Davalos.
Parker County attorneys probably know the law about this case even if they have not read the case. The case is an opinion from the Houston Court of Appeals, First District. The style of the case is, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters and Texas Farm Bureau Insurance v. Douglas Rasmussen and Kathy Rasmussen.
The Rasmussens owned a rental house located in Texas. Beginning in 2006, the Rasmussens insured the house with Texas Farm Bureau. To encourage a shift in their insurance provider, the insurance agent, Bolton, told the Rasmussens that he would take care of the Rasmussens’ insurance needs, provide more personalized service, and notify them of any changes to their policies.
The Rasmussens renewed the policy that covered the rental home in June 2007. They paid the premium for the term of June 1, 2007 to June 1, 2008. They did not pay the premium when it was again due in June 2008. In January 2009, the fire occurred. The Rasmussens submitted an insurance claim, but the Texas Farm Bureau denied it.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
