Home owners in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Colleyville, Keller, Aledo, Bedford, and all through the State of Texas should be comforted about a recent case. This case was in Florida, but will help home owners all over the United States, including Texas.

On June 19, 2010, The Miami Herald reported on a story concerning a lawsuit over the Chinese drywall that has been in the news the last few years. The author of the story is Nirvi Shah. The reporter tells us that after two and a half years, a Miami couple was awarded $2.5 million in damages and expenses, after blaming odors and corrosion problems on defective Chinese drywall.

The article, the title of which is, “Chinese drywall verdict is in: $2.5 million,” tells us that Armin and Lisa Seifart sued Miami-based Banner Supply after the drywall that the company provided corroded copper pipes and fixtures, ruined their air conditioner and other appliances and made their home stink.

How does someone living in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, Keller, Bedford, Hurst, Euless, Irving, De Soto, Duncanville, Burleson, Granbury, or anywhere else in Texas, know when an unlisted driver on an insurance policy is covered if an accident occurs? This is the third of three posts in a row on this subject. The following is what happened in a third case addressing this topic.

In 1989, the Texas Supreme Court, in the case, United States Fire Insurance Company v. United Service Automobile Association, discussed the issue of permissive driver coverage. This case involved a dispute between insurance companies over which had the duty to defend Anna Milliken, a passenger in an automobile, who allegedly caused an accident by grabbing the steering wheel of a moving vehicle. One policy was issued by United States Fire Insurance Company (Fire) and covered the automobile involved in the accident. The other was issued by United Service Automobile Association and insured the father of the passenger, Anna Milliken. The courts ruled that Fire had responsibility in this case.

The claim arose out of an accident that occurred when Anna was riding back with Douglas Martin from a church sponsored retreat. The car Douglas was driving was owned by his father and was covered by the Fire policy. Douglas testified that there was some swerving and horseplay prior to the accident. Anna testified that Douglas was zigzagging the wheel back and forth prior to the accident and that she grabbed the wheel on two occasions prior to the accident in an effort to play back with him. The first time Douglas did not object, and the second time was immediately prior to the accident. Anna testified that she and Douglas were “just kind of playing around.”

If you are a business owner in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Keller, Colleyville, Plano, Fort Worth, Burleson, or anywhere else in Texas and one of your employees is involved in an accident in a company vehicle, will your insurance provide coverage for him? This is the second of three posts on this related subject. Read on to find out what happened in one case.

The Texas Supreme Court, in 1979, issued an opinion in the case, Betty Coronado v. Employers’ National Insurance Company et al.

The issue before the court in this case was whether an employee who was driving a company owned vehicle on a purely personal mission after working hours was operating the vehicle with the permission of the company so as to be insured under the company’s automobile liability policy. The jury said yes. The first appeal court said no and the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the decision of no.

If you live in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Duncanville, De Soto, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Aledo, Azle, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas and a friend or acquaintance uses your car and has a wreck is there coverage? This posting and the two following will show what has happened in three previous cases.

In 1966, the Texas Supreme Court, in the case, Royal Endemnity Company v. H.E. Abbott & Sons, Inc., had this question before them in a case.

In this case, a 1961 pickup truck owned by Jack Herring and driven by George K. Landers ran into and damaged a building owned by H.E. Abbott & Sons, Inc. The truck was insured by a liability policy issued by Royal Indemnity Company. The insurance policy with Royal had a clause extending coverage to anyone operating the truck with Herring’s implied permission. In the lawsuit, Abbott obtained a judgment against Landers then sued Royal to enforce its judgment.

What can someone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Bedford, Hurst, Euless, De Soto, Duncanville, Fort Worth, or anywhere else in Texas do when they are being “jerked around” by an insurance company? Answer number one – Find an experienced Insurance Law Attorney to consult with. Answer number two – file a complaint.

Seeking the aid of an experienced Insurance Law Attorney is sometimes hard to do. There are a lot of attorneys that help victims of accidents. These attorneys are usually referred to as Personal Injury Attorneys. These types of claims are called third party claims. The other type of claim is called a first party claim. This is a claim against your own insurance company. There are not that many attorneys that have experience in handling these types of claims. These attorneys are usually referred to as Insurance Law Attorneys.

The majority of the time an attorney is going to be able to get you the money you are entitled to plus more depending on how wrong the conduct of the insurance company has been in handling the claim. Consultations are usually free and there is nothing to lose by having an attorney look at your situation.

It would be fair to say that most residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Coppell, De Soto, Duncanville, Fort Worth, Weatherford, and all other places in Texas, are responsible and conduct themselves in fair and proper ways in their dealings with others. Unfortunately that is not the way insurance companies always conduct their affairs.

The Dallas Morning News recently ran an article showing misconduct by two insurance companies doing business in Texas. The article is titled, “2 Texas auto insurers top complaints list, face investigation.” This article ran on June 5, 2010, and was authored by Terrence Stutz. Almost any experienced Insurance Law Attorney could tell you the names of the insurance companies that treat people right most of the time and the ones that treat people wrong most of the time. Further, even the “good” companies will do people wrong too many times.

In the article, Terrence Stutz gives some examples that are typical problems with the two companies named. The insurance companies are Loya Insurance and Old American County Mutual. These two companies were at the top of the list after an analysis of the Texas Department of Insurance figures showed that 10 of the 25 largest auto insurers in the state had worse than average customer service records. The above companies were at the top of the list.

What if you live in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Weatherford, Fort Worth, or anywhere else in Texas and you do not have the insurance coverage you think you have? Can the insurance company still be liable for bad faith?

Different courts have said that because the absence of coverage provides a reasonable basis to deny the claim, the general rule is that the absence of coverage also negates liability for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. This was stated by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995, in the case, Republic Insurance Company v. Stoker, and again in 1996, by the Texas Appeals Court in Houston [1st Dist.], in the case, North American Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Southern Marine & Aviation Underwriting, Inc.

But there are other important rulings where the courts have stated that the absence of coverage, does not necessarily excuse the insurance companies failure to investigate. This raises the possibility that an insurance company may be liable for breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing, even though the claim is not covered. In the case, First Texas Savings Association v. Reliance Insurance Company, a 1992 case, decided by the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the duty had been breached, even though the court found no coverage. Later cases have continued to recognize the possibility of bad faith liability without coverage. One was another 5th Circuit case, Burditt v. West American Insurance Company, decided in 1996. Another was Jimenez v. State Farm Lloyds, a 1997 case decided by the Federal Court in the Western District of Texas.

An earlier question on this blog was, How does someone in Grand Prairie, Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Keller, Azle, Coppell, Sasche, Bedford, or anywhere else in Texas know if they are experiencing conduct of bad faith by their insurance company? Let’s look at the current standard for judging this issue.

In 1997, the Texas Supreme Court, issued an opinion in the case, The Universal Life Insurance Company, AIA Services Corporation, and AIA Insurance, Inc. v. Ida M. Giles. In this case the court adopted as the liability standard the statutory language in Article 21.21, Section 4(10) of the Texas Insurance Code. (The current version is Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060(a)(2)(A)). Under that standard, an insurance company breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing by “failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim with respect to which the insurer’s liability has become reasonably clear.”

This statutory standard adopted in the Giles case takes the place of the common-law standard for unreasonable denying a claim or unreasonably delaying payment. The court’s analysis in the Giles case also supports adopting the statutory standard for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation. That standard is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060(a)(7), which prohibits “refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation with respect to the claim.”

How does someone in Grand Prairie, Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, Keller, Azle, Coppell, Sasche, Bedford, or anywhere else in Texas know when the insurance company is acting in “bad faith”? The answer is not easy, but to understand, it helps to know the history a little.

When reviewing the theory of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, understanding the history aids in understanding its current form. But first, when in a situation where you suspect something “ain’t right”, you should consult an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. Even experienced attorneys will argue over this theory and how it applies to the facts of a particular situation.

The Texas Supreme Court, in 1983, in the case, English v. Fischer, is where the development of the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing in Texas began. There, the plaintiff’s asked the court to recognize an implied covenant, or promise, of good faith and fair dealing that would require the insurance policy proceeds to be paid contrary to the terms of the contract. The court declined. But, the justices on the court pointed out that in other circumstances a duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from a special relationship between the parties. Insurance was one area where such a duty had been recognized.

If you have an insurance agent in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, De Soto, Aledo, Duncanville, Bedford, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas, you might wonder if the guy was being completely honest with you when he sold you the insurance policy on your car or auto.

Lawyers.com defines false representation as an untrue or incorrect representation regarding a material fact that is made with knowledge or belief of its inaccuracy.

In the Texas Supreme Court case, DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., a 1990 case, the court said a false representation must involve an existing or past material fact, rather than a statement of opinion, judgment, probability, or expectation in order to constitute actionable fraud. Statements concerning future events, sales talk, “puffing,” and other similar statements are not considered actionable misrepresentations. This was stated by the Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler, in 1978, in the case, Hicks v. Wright. Similarly, representations concerning future events are not actionable unless at the time the statement or promise was made, the person making it did not intend to perform. This was stated by the Dallas Court of Appeals in 1976, in the case, Stone v. Enstam.

Contact Information