Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance Policies And The Statute Of Limitations

September 12, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

What insurance attorney hasn’t had someone call after the statute of limitations has already run on the case?

The Dallas Court of Appeals issued an opinion in July 2022, that deals with statute of limitations issues. The opinion is styled, Knox Mediterranean Foods, Inc., v. Amtrust Financial Services.

Knox has incurred a burglary loss on June 16, 2016, and submitted a loss claim to its insurance company, Amtrust. Amtrust paid part of the claim March 15, 2017, along with a letter requesting further information. On June 13, 2017, Amtrust sent a follow up letter that stated in relevant part that due to the requested information not being provided that Amtrust was closing the file. The current lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2020. This summary judgment motion was filed by Amtrust asserting the statute of limitations defense. The judgment was granted.

Interpleader Cases

September 10, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life Insurance claims are usually the type of claims that involve an interpleader action. Here is a 2022, opinion from the El Paso Court of Appeals that involves an interpleader, however, the interpleader is related to the proceeds of an auto liability policy that involved a death. Irregardless of the reason for the interpleader, this opinion points out some of the proper procedural aspects related to an interpleader case.

The style of the case is, Theresa Ruebbling, Individually and As Heir Of Victoria Rangel, Deceased v. Foremost County Mutual Insurance Company.

This case stems from a February 19, 2021 automobile accident that killed Victoria Rangel. Foremost insured the vehicle Rangel was a passenger in at the time of the crash. It agreed to pay Rangel’s heirs, her parents Theresa Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel, the $100,000 policy limit for bodily injury liability. Foremost filed an interpleader petition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 43 alleging a dispute between Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel regarding the division of the insurance proceeds had caused it “reasonable doubt about how to disburse the settlement proceeds.” Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel were both named defendants.

Insurance Bad Faith Explained

September 5, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a 2022 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, that articulates how courts look at insurance bad faith claims. The opinion is styled, Art Dallas, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company and Derek Franks.

This is an insurance dispute involving Federal Insurance Company (FIC) and Art Dallas, Inc’s (ADI) extracontractual claims or “bad faith” claims against FIC. The opinion, in part, comes from FIC’s Rule 12(c) motion.

The standard for deciding a motion under Rule 12(c) is the same as the one for deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Insurance Claims And Appraisal

September 3, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Probably all auto and home insurance policies have appraisal paragraphs in them. So how do the Courts view appraisal paragraphs? This is discussed in a 2022, opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The opinion is styled, Diane Castanon, Katherine Castanon v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana.

This is a lawsuit that arises from a plumbing claim. A plumbing leak is alleged to have occurred on or about July 20, 2019. Plaintiffs sued Safeco on July 20, 2021, for various violations of the Texas Insurance Code and breach of contract.

The wording of the appraisal paragraph can be read in the opinion.

Insurance Claims And Experts (Plumbing)

August 29, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance claims often do not need an expert to help the case. When an expert is needed, it is important to know how courts look at experts. Here is a homeowners case wherein an expert is being used to bolster the case. This is a 2022 opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The opinion is styled, FB & SB Leasing, LLC v. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.

In this first–party insurance dispute involving a property experiencing plumbing problems and foundation issues, Chubb presents two reliability arguments to support excluding the opinion
testimony of Plaintiff FB &SB Leasing’s sole causation expert, Michael B. Couch. Chubb urges first that Couch’s report provides insufficient information about his methodology. Second, Chubb argues Couch relied on mistaken or incorrect underlying data when opining that there were multiple leaks at the property. There’s no dispute that Couch’s testimony, if reliable, would be relevant. Chubb also doesn’t dispute Couch’s qualifications. As argued, and on this record, Chubb’s complaints go to the eventual weight a jury might afford the testimony and are most appropriately addressed at trial via cross-examination or through introduction of competing expert testimony.

As to the first argument, there’s no dispute that Couch inspected the property on multiple occasions and relied on a plumbing report that noted multiple breaks in plumbing lines. Relying on this underlying data and his ample training and experience, Couch opined on the cause of the damage to the property. This is sufficient given the parties’ arguments presented here. The second of Chubb’s arguments relies on a distinction Chubb draws between “leaks” and “breaks” in plumbing, which on this record is an issue better reserved for cross examination at trial. Both side’s experts relied on the same plumbing report that noted multiple plumbing issues. Even Defendant’s expert appears to use the terms “break” and “leak” interchangeably in his expert report. Moreover, Chubb didn’t depose Couch, which might have provided more detail and nuance on these issues to further inform a motion to exclude. Accordingly, on this record and based on the arguments presented by Chubb, the Motion, is Denied Without Prejudice. Chubb may re-urge its arguments later in the case, via a motion in limine or at trial.

Bad Faith Insurance And The Statute Of Limitations

August 27, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys must know the time period from which the statute of limitations starts. This issue is addressed in a 2022, opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The opinion is styled, Patriot Logistics v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America.

This case deals with various issues and the facts of the case can be read in the opinion. It is a summary judgment opinion. Here, the focus is the statute of limitations on the bad faith claim.

The Fifth Circuit holds that under Texas law the statute of limitations begins to run when the particular cause of action generally accrues—being ‘“when facts come into existence that authorize a party to seek a judicial remedy . . . regardless of when the plaintiff learns of the
injury.”’

Bad Faith Insurance And More On Experts – 2

August 22, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Bad Faith Insurance – It’s been said that if you need an expert to explain bad faith, then you probably don’t have a case. However, there may be an expert needed on other aspects of the case. Our last Blog explained part of the way that courts look at experts. This is some more of that opinion. The case is styled, Richard Kim D/B/A Centre Cleaners v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The opinion is issued by the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Plaintiff had hail damage coverage for his property through Nationwide. Plaintiff made a timely claim for damages and Nationwide inspected the claim and asserted that the damage amount was below the deductible amount.

Plaintiff filed suit under the Texas Insurance Code, Sections 541 and 542, and for various violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Bad Faith Insurance And More On Experts

August 20, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance attorneys who get involved in very many lawsuits will have situations where an expert is required. When that happens, it is vital to understand what the courts will accept and not accept as it relates to experts. This is discussed in a 2022, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The opinion is styled, Richard Kim D/B/A Centre Cleaners v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

Plaintiff had an insurance policy with Nationwide that covers hail damage claims. Plaintiff filed a claim asserting that his roof had been damaged by hail. Nationwide denied the claim. Plaintiff had an expert and named his as someone who would testify in the lawsuit and filed the appropriate experts’ report. Nationwide filed a motion to strike the expert. The Court granted Nationwide’s motion.

Under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), the disclosures of an expert witnesses who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony must be accompanied by a written report that contains “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them” and “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them.” The Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 26 provides that expert witnesses “must prepare a detailed and complete written report, stating the testimony the witness is expected to present during direct examination, together with the reasons therefor. These Notes also explain that the purpose of the reports is to avoid the disclosure of ‘sketchy and vague’ expert information, as was the practice under the former rule. The purpose of a ‘detailed and complete’ expert report as contemplated by Rule 26(a) . . . [is to] prevent an ambush at trial. The test of a report is whether it was sufficiently complete, detailed and in compliance with the Rules so that surprise is eliminated, unnecessary depositions are avoided, and costs are reduced.

Expert And Homeowners Claim

August 15, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

When experts are needed in a homeowners claim, it is good to see how courts look at experts. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued an opinion on July 1, 2022, that deals with experts. The opinion is styled, FB & SB Leasing, LLC vs. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.

Chubb filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Michael B. Couch, who had been named by the Plaintiff as an expert. The court denied Chubbs motion and stated as follows.

In this first–party insurance dispute involving a property experiencing plumbing problems
and foundation issues, Chubb presents two reliability arguments to support excluding the opinion testimony of Plaintiff FB &SB Leasing’s sole causation expert, Michael B. Couch. Chubb urges first that Couch’s report provides insufficient information about his methodology. Second, Chubb argues Couch relied on mistaken or incorrect underlying data when opining that there were multiple leaks at the property. There’s no dispute that Couch’s testimony, if reliable, would be relevant. Chubb also doesn’t dispute Couch’s qualifications. As argued, and on this record, Chubb’s complaints go to the eventual weight a jury might afford the testimony and are most appropriately addressed at trial via cross-examination or through introduction of competing expert testimony.

Which Insurance Code Section Applies To Fraud?

August 13, 2022 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers live on the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060. There is disagreement among the Federal Courts about which of the sub-sections under 541.060 require the specifics of a “fraud” pleading. This issue is discussed in a 2022, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The style of the opinion is UGM Of Dallas, Inc. d/b/a Union Gospel Mission Of Dallas, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Company And Laura Jones.

UGM has a insurance policy with Harleysville that covers hail damage to the insured property. UGM claimed a loss that was eventually adjusted by Jones. The facts of the case can be read in the opinion. What is discussed here is the courts coverage of whether or not the requirements of a fraud pleading applied to the section of the insurance code that was pled by UGM when a lawsuit resulted against Jones.

Defendants respond that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Jones
that is cognizable under Texas law and also fails to satisfy the higher federal pleading
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because these claims are “grounded
in fraud”