For someone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, Dalworthington Gardens, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, De Soto, Crowley, or anywhere else in Texas, the issue of “appraisal clauses” in insurance contracts will occassionally come up. How these clauses in an insurance contract work can be confusing to the normal insured, to experienced Insurance Law Attorneys, insurance adjusters, and the courts.

For the most part, the appraisal clause in an insurance policy comes into play when the insured and the insurance company disagree on the value of a claim. In other words the insurance company agrees they owe money on the claim, but the amount of money they owe may be in dispute. This is common when agreeing to the value of items like, jewelry, antiques, and rare collections. But this dispute can also come up in more common claims such as hail damage claims to roofs.

The Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas, issued an opinion on March 10, 2011, that is controversial and is an issue that will play out further in other cases in the future if not in a further appeal in this case. The style of the case is, In Re Southern Insurance Company.

When someone in Weatherford, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Peaster, Springtown, Azle, Millsap, Cool, Poolville, Whitt, or out in Mineral Wells, finds themselves in a situation where they have to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against an insurance company, they want to win the case. The best chance of doing that is making sure the lawsuit is in a State Court rather than a Federal Court. There are many reasons why a State Court is preferable to Federal Court. All someone really needs to know is that every time an insurance company lawyer can get a case removed from State Court into a Federal Court, they are going to do so. The other thing they need to know is to seek the advice of an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. He will know the best strategies for keeping a case in a State Court.

On January 24, 2011, the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued an opinion in a case where the issue was discussing, in which court the lawsuit should be litigated. The style of the case is, Scott Browning v. Sentinel Insurance Company and Cavalry Construction Co.

Browning had filed the lawsuit in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging that Calvary, violated provisions of the Texas Insurance Code.

When someone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Mansfield, De Soto, Duncanville, Ennis, Weatherford, Aledo, or any other place in Texas, buys life insurance they expect that when they die, the life insurance company will pay the benefits of the policy to their named beneficiary. However that is not always what happens.

The Washington Post published an article on March 5, 2011, titled “Death of a loved one can be beginning of hard fight with life insurer.” The article is written by David Evans of Bloomberg News.

The article tells of a lady named Jane Pierce who spent nine years struggling alongside her husband, Todd, as he fought cancer in his sinus cavity. The treatments were working. Then in July 2009, Todd died in a fiery car crash. He was 46. That was the beginning of a whole new battle for Jane, this time with Todd’s life insurance company, MetLife.

For folks in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, North Richland Hills, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Keller, Colleyville, Saginaw, Lake Worth, and other places in Texas, interpreting an insurance policy is something that is very hard to do. Even an experienced Insurance Lawyer cannot always assure someone who asks what an outcome may be if there is a dispute.

Based on decisions and opinions issued by courts in Texas, an experienced Insurance Law Attorney can give guidance to probable outcomes of disputes. Here is one of those cases that the attorney would have read and used as a resource.

The case is Colony Insurance Company v. ACREM, INC. d/b/a Stetsons Nightclub, and was decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. The opinion was issued on February 23, 2011.

Business owners in Weatherford, Parker County, Aledo, Azle, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Hudson Oaks, Brock, Springtown, Poolville, Cresson, and other communities through out Texas would naturally wonder about the coverages provided in their commercial insurance policies. Very few people would understand all the language. This lack of understanding extends to insurance agents, insurance companies, and even the courts and experienced Insurance Law Attorneys. The value of attorneys who deal in this area of the law is that they can provide guidance in how the courts would ultimately decide in the cases where there is a dispute. The Spreme Court of Texas recently decided a case where policy interpretation was part of the issue in controversy. The case is, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company F/K/A The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Pa. The opinion in this case was issued on February 25, 2011.

This is an insurance coverage dispute case. The insurance company took the position that based on policy language and the pleading in the lawsuit in which their insured was sued that they had no duty to defend the lawsuit or pay any damages. This is known as the “eight corners rule”, the eight corners being the “four corners” of the insurance contract and the “four corners” of the pleading, or lawsuit papers. In other words, when the two are read together, is there anything in the lawsuit allegations that invoke responsibility by the insurance company in the insurance contract to defend their insured or pay for any damages that may be part of the lawsuit.

National Union filed summary judgement motion with the trial court that was granted. The first level appeals court upheld the trial court decision. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case back to the trial level for further determinations.

Folks in Weatherford, Parker County, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Poolville, Whitt, Peaster, Hudson Oaks, Brock, Willow Park, Cool, Millsap, and other places in Texas will at one time or another have a claim against their own insurance company. When making this claim against their own insurance company, otherwise known as a first party claim, and the insurance company does not treat you properly in the handling of the claim it is likely that there have been violations of provisions of the Texas Insurance Code. When this happens it is advisable to seek the assistance of an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. Here is what he should tell you.

1) gather all the documents you have related to the claim, such as the policy itself, letters and e-mails and faxes to and from the insurance company, and any documents verifying the value of the loss such as repair bills or estimates;

2) write out what has happened – this should be your version of the sequence of events with all the relevant information to help the attorney understand the case – the writing should start out: My name is …, I have a policy of insurance with …, On such and such date … happened, I then made a claim to my insurance company for benefits. Then write down a sequencial listing of what happened in the claims process.

Drivers in Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Irving, Duncanville, De Soto, Mansfield, Crowley, Burleson, Benbrook, and other places in Texas may wonder how the liability portion and underinsured portion of their automobile policy work. To begin with, there is not a short simple answer. Each situation has to be looked at and the policy read in conjunction with a particular fact scenario. Certainly one of the first things to do is to get with an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. That attorney would know the questions to ask and what to look at to give reliable guidance.

Here is a case for thought. The case is George Rosales and Ester Rivera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. This case was decided by the Austin Court of Appeals in 1992.

George Rosales and Ester Rivera sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under a Texas Standard Liability Policy issued to Sharon Barrett. The trial court concluded that Rosales and Rivera could not obtain liability and UIM benefits under a single insurance policy, and granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. This appeals court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Someone in Weatherford, Aledo, Azle, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Annetta, Mineral Wells, Cool, Millsap, Peaster, Poolville, Whitt, Lipan, and other communities in Texas probably does not know very much about Personal Injury Protection (PIP) on their automobile insurance policy. One of the things they should know is that it is a coverge they have automatically unless they reject it in writing.

The Texas Insurance Code, Section 1952.152(a) says:

An insurer may not deliver or issue for delivery in this state an automobile liability insurance policy, including a policy provided through the Texas Automobile Insurance Plan Association under Chapter 2151, that covers liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle unless the insurer provides personal injury protection coverage in the policy or supplemental to the policy.

It happens in Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Roanoke, Keller, Colleyville, North Richland Hills, Grapevine, and all over the state. Someone has some property damage. They call their insurance company. The insurance company suggests they call XYZ company. The insured calls XYZ company. XYZ company does something wrong in their dealings with the insured. The question becomes: Is the insurance company responsible for any wrong committed by XYZ company?

The most common situations where the above happens is car wrecks. After a car wreck the insurance company often suggests a repair shop to take the car to for repairs. The second most common situation is home repairs. A home owner has hail damage, flood, or fire and the insurance company suggests a company to make the repairs.

The Texas Court of Appeals in Dallas recently had a case that involved a theft. The opinion was issued on February 8, 2011, and the case is styled, J. Howard Jaster, Individually and as Assignee of the Edinberg Trust v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company. In this case Jaster alleged that Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (Shelter) was an agent of Michael Hanna d/b/a Cornerstone Replacement Services (Cornerstone).

Contact Information