Grand Prairie life insurance attorneys need to know about this 1979, Texas Supreme Court case. It is styled, A. W. Washington v. The Reliable Life Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.
In October 1974 Reliable issued three life insurance policies pursuant to separate applications made by the insured, Ozell Washington, who named her son, A. W. Washington, as beneficiary.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance of these policies are as follows.
Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to understand the 1980, Texas Supreme Court case, Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest v. Overstreet. Here is some relevant background information.
In February, 1972, Overstreet submitted his application to Southwest to convert a five-year term life policy to a life insurance policy with endowment at age ninety. The earlier policy provided that it would lapse on March 15, 1972. To effect the conversion of the term policy to the policy at issue, Overstreet, on March 6, 1972, delivered his premium check to insurer. It was returned because of insufficient funds. Overstreet then wrote a second check which was also returned for insufficient funds. His third check cleared the bank on April 18, 1972.
The insurer treated March 15 as the date annual premiums were due and sent notices to Overstreet on that basis. On March 6, 1973, insurer sent a notice to Overstreet advising him that his annual premium was due on March 15. After he failed to make his payment on that date, the insurer, on April 5, sent him another notice advising that the grace period for late payment would expire April 15. Overstreet still made no payment. The insurer, on April 15, sent him a further notice advising that the premium was past due and that the policy had been terminated. The notice offered, however, to reinstate the policy if Overstreet paid the premium within ten days. On April 25, the last day of the ten-day period, Overstreet paid the premium, which was for the 1973 insurance year. That premium payment was the last that Overstreet ever made. He did not pay his 1974 premium, and he died on April 24 of that year.
Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to know about these sections of the Texas Insurance Code that prohibit certain limitations in a life insurance policy.
Here’s the first one to know:
Texas Insurance Code, Section 1101.053. This sections says that “A life insurance policy may not include a provision that limits the time during which an action under the policy may be commenced to a period of less than two years after the cause of action accrues.”
Dallas insurance lawyers who deal with insurance companies very often probably already know this, but for those of you who do not – here is what you need to know and consider when dealing with an insurance company.
1) An insurance company is not your friend. They may sound nice initially when talking with you but they are, from the start, working and trying to find ways to keep from paying on a claim. That is what they do. Never make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Their job is to make money by keeping from paying claims any way they can.
2) The Texas Insurance Code is one place where the laws governing insurance companies and their conduct is regulated. The Texas Department of Insurance is suppose to regulate the insurance companies. The reality is that TDI is overworked and understaffed. If you really want to be treated right by an insurance company – then you must hire an attorney.
Dallas Life Insurance lawyers need to know this case.
The case is styled Wilke v. Finn et al. It is a 1931, that was approved by the Texas Court of Appeals. Here is some relevant information.
The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, on December 31, 1923, issued to Herman Finn a policy of life insurance in the sum of $1,500, in which Fred Wilke was named the beneficiary.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be able to advise clients when it is appropriate for them to be named beneficiaries in an insurance policies.
A 1942, Texas Court of Appeals case styled, Drane v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. et. is good for guidance. Here is some relevant information.
Although not related by blood or marriage to Ezell, Jr., nor indebted to him in any way, Miss Drane named him as beneficiary in two insurance policies totaling $10,510 and providing for double indemnity in the event of accidental death. Her executor contends that her beneficiary is not entitled to the money because he had no insurable interest in her life. If this contention is correct it would be contrary to public policy to allow Ezell, Jr., to recover.
Dallas life insurance attorneys need to understand the difference between life insurance and betting when life insurance is obtained in a business setting.
A1998, Houston (14th) Court of Appeals case gives some guidance. The style of the case is, Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. Here is some relevant information.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the employer, NCS, of the deceased, Ramon Tamez. This court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
Dallas life insurance lawyers need to know a basic rule of life insurance. This rule is the designated beneficiary must have an insurable interest in the life of the insured.
Beginning in an 1894 case, the Texas Supreme Court has said many times that it is well settled that a life insurance beneficiary must have an insurable interest in the insured’s life.
The basis for this rule is twofold:
Dallas life insurance lawyers need to know the “slayer’s rule” regarding life insurance policies.
This rule is written into law in Texas Insurance Code, Section 887.205. It says in part, “A beneficiary of a life insurance certificate forfeits the beneficiary’s interest in the certificate if the beneficiary is the principle or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured. The nearest relative of the insured is entitled to the proceeds of an insurance certificate forfeited under this section.
The Texas Supreme Court also said this in the 1987, case “Crawford v. Coleman.” Here are some facts:
Dallas life insurance attorneys need to know about the case issued by the Eastland Court of Appeals in 1981. Here is some relevant information:
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. Koch filed a counterclaim seeking the policy proceeds of $5,000, 12% penalty and reasonable attorney’s fees. The jury found that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated at the time of her death. Although that separation was pursuant to a “temporary” court order entered in the pending divorce proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Koch, the trial court entered judgment for Koch notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that under Texas law there is no status of legal separation of a husband and wife before the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Pilot Life Insurance Company appealed and lost his appeal.
Pilot Life contends that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence established that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated pursuant to an order of a district court and thus they were legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death; and, were, therefore, legally separated within the contemplation of the policy.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
