Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Attorney Fees In Insurance Cases

July 20, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to know about this Beaumont Court of Appeals case. It is styled, Joe Ware v. United Fire Lloyds.

It is an appeal by Ware wherein he is disputing the trial court’s award of attorney fees in a property insurance dispute. He was awarded $3,133.20 in the case but he felt like he proved attorney fees of $133,497.00.

Ware owned two commercial properties in Orange County at the time of Hurricane Rita in 2005 and Hurricane Ike in 2008. After Hurricane Rita, but before Hurricane Ike, Ware filed a lawsuit on an insurance claim for damage to the properties. He was paid $146,170.85. After Hurricane Ike, Ware filed a claim for damage to the same properties. Ware made a written pre-suit demand of $187,121.51. Lloyds paid Ware $12,197.81 on the Ike claim.

Insurance Company Trying To Recover Payments

July 18, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a story all attorneys need to know and be able to tell their clients about.

The story is from The Southeast Texas Legal Journal. The title of the story is “Insurance Company Seeking Reimbursement For Money Paid Following Collision.”

The article tells us that an insurance company has filed suit against a Beaumont woman after it doled out more than $6,000 to one of its clients following a collision.

Weird Auto Insurance

July 16, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas attorneys dealing with used car lot situations would want to know about this recent opinion from the Austin Court of Appeals. The case is styled, SideCars, Inc. v Texas Department of Insurance, et al.

Here is some background information.

This was a summary judgment case wherein the trial court ruled in favor of the Texas Department of Insurance against SideCars and SideCars appealed.

Life Insurance Denial

July 14, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys will want to ready this Dallas case. The case is styled, Bich Ngoc Nguyen v. Allstate Insurance Company and Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance Company. The opinion is from the Dallas Court of Appeals and was issued on May 29, 2013.

Here is some relevant information from this summary judgement case:

On May 12, 2008, Bich’s mother, Anh Nguyen (Ahn), contacted Suong Truong, an insurance agent, about purchasing life insurance. Anh did not speak, read, or write English and discussed the purchase with Truong in Vietnamese. Truong completed the application for life insurance in English, and Anh signed the application. In the application, Anh answered “no” to questions about any existing health conditions, including whether, in the past ten years, she had been treated for, had any sign or symptom of, or been told that she had a lung disorder. She also denied that she had seen a doctor or been hospitalized during the five years preceding the application. Truong submitted the application for life insurance to Lincoln.

What Can Happen When Insurance Company Refuses To Pay

July 13, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth Insurance lawyers will like telling clients about a case that went to trial in Jefferson County, Texas, in May 2013.

This blog tells one story after another about situations involving insurance and claims. The Southeast Texas Record, a Legal Journal ran a story titled, “Hurrican Ike Trial: Jurors Hit National Lloyds With $915K Verdict.” Here is what the article tells us:

A Jefferson County jury recently found National Lloyds Insurance committed deceptive trade practices in the handling of a policy claim following Hurricane Ike, awarding the plaintiff nearly a million dollars in damages.

Insurance Misrepresentation

July 11, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers need to know insurance misrepresentation when they see it. The Texas Insurance Code Section 541.061(2) makes it illegal for an insurance company to fail to disclose relevant information. The Texas DTPA does the same thing in Section 17.46(b)(24). There are several sections of the insurance code that make misrepresentation illegal, most of which is found in Chapter 541.

Section 541 prohibits making any statement, whether it is oral or in writing, misrepresenting the terms of a policy, the benefits, advantages, or dividends of a policy, among other things. The purpose of the statute of in preventing one insurer to make misrepresentations in efforts to induce a policyholder from changing to another company.

Section 541.052 prohibits making any advertisement or statement containing any assertion, representation, or statement with respect to the business of insurance or with respect to any person in the conduct of his insurance business that is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, whether it be oral or in writing.

Bad Faith Insurance Examples Of Unfair Settlement Practices

July 9, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys should know examples of the ways insurance companies commit bad faith insurance code violations with their insured customers.

Most of these violations can be found in Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. The Texas Department of Insurance is a place to go to file a complaint when the insurance company commits an unlawful act. But for the consumer who really wants something done about a wrong an insurance company commits, it is necessary to seek the assistance of an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.

Here are some examples of unfair settlement practices found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060:

Insurance Bills

July 7, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance lawyers who keep up with the new laws being proposed and passed by the State Legislature need to know some of this information.

Here is some news from the end of the 83rd Legislative Session.

Lobbyists for the insurance industry filed a bunch of anti-policy bills that were designed to make it harder to file a claim and be paid what you are owed. The consumer group, Texas Watch, commissioned a statewide public opinion survey to show lawmakers that Texans were not interested in enacting additional protections for insurance companies. The results of the survey were clear. Texas voters indicated they believe that insurance companies should be required to fulfill their obligations to claimants, and, if they don’t, they should fact stiff penalties in court. This survey and its’ results helped lay the groundwork for the defeat of a host of pro-insurance industry proposals.

Insurance Appraisals

July 6, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys in Fort Worth and the Dallas area will have clients calling at one time or another asking about appraisals.

Many property insurance policies contain appraisal clauses. These clauses define a process for appraising the value of the damaged property, if the parties cannot agree. Common provisions call for each party to chose an appraiser. Those appraisers then choose a neutral third appraiser, called the umpire. If the parties and their appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, either party may petition a court to appoint one. Once the appraisers and umpire are chosen, they value the loss. If all do not agree on the value, the decision of any two will control. The intent is to give the insurance company and the insured a simple, speedy, and fair means of deciding disputed values.

When the two appraisers do not agree, the umpire doe not simply choose between them. It is the duty of the umpire to to ascertain and determine, in the exercise of his own judgment and as the result of his own investigation, the values of the disputed items.

Recovery On Breach Of Insurance Contract

July 4, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Weatherford attorney who handles insurance claims needs to have an awareness of the potential recovery on a breach of insurance contract claim. Here is a little food for thought in that regard.

The 1988, Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., case discusses this. The Texas Supreme Court issued the opinion and the case regards lots of issues and discussion regarding insurance law. Part of that law deals with damages for breach of the insurance contract. The Court said that policy benefits are the basic recovery allowed for an insurance company breach of its contractual obligations under the insurance contract. An insurance company’s refusal to pay the insured’s claim causes damages in at least the amount of the policy benefits wrongfully withheld. Some would call this “benefit of the bargain” damages.

In addition, the insured should be able to recover consequential damages that are the foreseeable result of the insurance company breach of the insurance contract. The argument to be anticipated with this rule is being able to explain what and why a consequential damage is actually a consequential damage and not a damage they may have occurred anyway. But as far as consequential damages are concerned, numerous cases hold that insurance contracts are subject to the same rules as other contracts. This is backed up in Texas case law and made clear in the 1994, Texas Supreme Court case, Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds.