Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Can I Sue The Other Guys Insurance Company?

May 15, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Anybody in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Peaster, Brock, Lipan, Hudson Oaks, Annetta, Poolville, Whitt, or other places in Texas would wonder if they can sue the insurance company. Especially when they feel as if though they are being jerked around and treated in a disrespectful or improper manner. Well the answer to the question is yes, you can sue them. The bigger question is, can you win. Here is a case to think about.

The Texas Supreme Court, in 1994, decided a case styled, Allstate Insurance Company v. Kathleen G. Watson. The issue in the case was whether the state legislature allowed a third party claimant to directly sue the other guy’s insurance company for violation of what is now Section 541.060 of the Texas Insurance Code. The holding by the court was no, it is not allowed in Texas.

Here are some facts in the case:

Can I Sue The Insurance Company

May 14, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Many people in Grand Praire, Arlington, Irving, Mansfield, Garland, Mesquite, De Soto, Duncanville, Dallas, Fort Worth, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Texas will wonder from time to time if they can sue the insurance company when something goes wrong.

Here is a short answer that does not necessarily apply to all situations.

When it is your own insurance company that commits a wrong then there is a procedure to be followed, but you can sue them.

Homeowners Insurance Policies

May 12, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

People who own homes in Weatherford, Aledo, Azle, Poolville, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, Peaster, Mineral Wells, Cool, Millsap, and other areas of Parker and Palo Pinto counties might want to pay attention this story.

The Court of Appeals, Beaumont, issued an opinion on March 10, 2011, that gives some insight into how the courts will look at appraisal clauses in homeowners insurance policies. The style of the case is, In Re Southern Insurance Company.

In this case the homeowner, Michelle Neisen, suffered a loss that she alleges was the result of hurricane damage. Southern sought to have an appraisal process to determine the amount of the disputed loss. Neison claimed that Southern waived its right to appraisal because Southern claimed it was not responsible for the loss. The trial court refused to order participation in the appraisal process which Southern was requesting and Southern appealed that decision.

Insurance And Homeowners Policy

May 10, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Any homeowner is Grand Prairie, Arlington, Irving, Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, Mansfield, Dallas, Fort Worth, or any other place in Texas who thinks they know a lot about their insurance policy, probably is still not sure how an arbitration clause in the policy works.

The Texas Court of Appeals, Beaumont, issued an opinion on March 24, 2011. The style of the case is, In re Ranchers & Farmers Mutual Insurance Company. This case is being appealed by way of a “writ of mandamus” and is normally referred to as a mandamus proceeding.

The name of a writ, the principle work of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, meaning we command. It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or inferior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.

The Deceptive Trade Practices Act And The Insurance Statutes

May 8, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Consumers in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Arlington, Dallas, Mansfield, Burleson, Crowley, Benbrook, Lake Worth, Rendon, Keene, Burleson, and other places in Texas have the protection of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) when it comes to having rights against businesses and insurance companies that treat people in an unjust manner.

Regarding these two areas of law, Texas court cases and the statutes themselves tell us that the Insurance Code provisions are to be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes to define and prohibit unfair and deceptive insurance practices. This is specifically stated in the Insurance Code, Section 541.008, where it says, “This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote the underlying purposes as provided by Section 541.001.” This is also made clear in the 1988, Texas Supreme Court case, Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

The Supreme Court has stated that the similar liberal construction mandate in the DTPA requires that the statute be given “its most comprehensive application possible without doing any violence to its terms.” The courts apply this same reasoning to insurance cases, which is made clear in other court cases.

Med Pay On Homeowners Policies

May 7, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Homeowners in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Britton, Crowley, Burleson, Benbrook, Lillian, Godley, Glen Rose, Acton, Cresson, and other places in Texas, might be interested in this case.

This case is from the El Paso Court of Appeals and was decided on April 20, 2011. The style of the case is, Pamela Rust v. Texas Farmers Insurance Company.

This is a case where Pamela Rust brought suit seeking medical payment benefits from Texas Farmers Insurance Company under two homeowner policies that it had issued to Frank Kurosky, her father.

Covered Losses In Insurance Policy

May 5, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Irving, Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, and other cities in Texas would probably get confused trying to understand what is a covered loss in an insurance policy and what is not a covered loss.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Texas recently issued an opinion is a case covering this topic. The opinion, styled Markel American Insurance Company v. Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Sales & Marketing Ltd., and Lennar Homes of Texas Land & Construction Ltd., was issued on April 19, 2011.

This case involved several legal issues but the most relevant here dealt with how courts examine these cases to see what is a covered loss versus a loss that may have been incurred that is not covered by the insurance policy. Here is some background.

Exclusions In Insurance Policies

May 3, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insureds in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Hudson Oaks, Aledo, Azle, Peaster, Cresson, Cool, Brock, Poolville, Springtown, and other places in Texas would have a very hard time reading and understanding what an insurance policy says. That is the main reason why an experienced Insurance Lawyer needs to be consulted whenever a claim is denied.

The Texas Court of Appeals in Amarillo decided a case on April 18, 2011, that dealt with policy interpretation. The style of the case is, Evanston Insurance Company v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc. In this case the court of appeals granted a summary judgment in favor of D&L Masonry. Here is some background.

Evanston issued a commercial general liability policy to D&L. The policy periods are not in dispute. D&L was engaged in the masonry business and contracted to install masonry and renovations to public schools in Muleshoe, Texas. Because of difficulties and weather concerns, D&L did not do the masonry work until after the window frames and windows had been installed. Because the windows and frames were already in place, D&L had to attempt to seal the area between the frames and brick with mortar. In an effort to prevent masonry mortar from damaging the windows and frames, D&L used masking tape around the window frames and soap and water to soap the windows. After D&L had completed the masonry work, the schools were examined and mortar stains were found on many of the window frames. Additionally, some of the frames were scratched when D&L attempted to remove some of the excess mortar that had fallen on the frames during the masonry work. D&L was eventually charged and they paid to have the windows replaced at a cost of $58,113. D&L paid the amount and submitted a claim to Evanston for reinbursement. Evanston denied the claim stating the policy exclusions applied because the window frame damage was damage to property upon which D&L performed its work. D&L then sued Evanston.

Examination Under Oath Compliance

May 1, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most insureds living in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Pantego, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Keller, Colleyville, Saginaw, and other places in Texas would not be sure what it means to submit to an “examination under oath” (EUO).

An EUO is where a person is asked questions, usually by an attorney or insurance investigator, after the person has taken an oath to tell the truth, and the testimony is taken by a certified court reporter.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, issued an opinion on April 11, 2011, where part of the case dealt with the requirements of an EUO. The style of the case is, Rossco Holdings, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company.

Life Insurance – ERISA And Misrepresentation

April 30, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a case for insureds in Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, and other places in Texas to think about.

This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on April 13, 2011. The style of the case is, Araceli Medina Garcia v. American United Life Insurance Company. Here is some background.

In January 2006, Salvador DeReza Garcia died in a car accident. At the time of this death, Salvador was covered under a group life and accidental death insurance policy issued by American United Life Insurance Company (AUL) and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-46. Salvador’s wife, Araceli Medina Garcia, submitted a claim under this policy following his death. AUL denied her claim because Salvador was living illegally in the United States and made material misrepresentations regarding his identity during the application process. A lawsuit was filed, the district court ruled in AUL’s favor. This appeal followed. This appeals court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.