Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Competing Insurance Policies In Texas

January 27, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Let’s pretend your sister in Dallas, is driving her brothers car, who lives in Fort Worth. The car is insured on hthe parents Safeco auto policy that was bought in Grand Prairie. Your sister has a wreck in Weatherford, Texas. Your sister also had insurance with Allstate on her own car she had purchased in Arlington. Your sister is at fault and the other driver suffers personal injury and property damage. Both Allstate and Safeco refuse to settle the claim being asserted against you and your sister because they believe the other company should be paying the claim or paying the claim on a pro-rata basis.

This can be a very frustrating position for someone to find themselves involved and is referred to as an “other insurance” issue. The above is roughly what happened in the case, Safeco Lloyds Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company. This case was tried and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

The general rule in the past has been that auto insurance coverage goes with the vehicle. If the coverage on the vehicle is not sufficient to pay all the lose incurred then, the driver of the vehicle who has separate coverage has this separate coverage kick in as secondary coverage. However, the laws have changed and each insurance policy has to be looked at and compared with the other policy that may provide coverage to see what the result may be in any particular situation.

18% Penalty On Insurance Company For Not Paying Claims On Time

January 26, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The Texas Insurance Code requires an insurance company to pay a claim within 60 days of receiving all the information it needs to make a determination of whether or not a claim should be paid and the amount to be paid. The requirement is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.058. In the event of a weather-related catastrophe, as defined by the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, the period is extended to 75 days. This is found in Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.059. The law here applies to all residents of Texas including those in Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or even out in Weatherford or Parker County.

Section 542.059 was recently part of a lawsuit in a case decided on December 15, 2009. The case was styled, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. C.R.E.S. Management, L.L.C.

In this lawsuit, CRES owned five properties that suffered multiple losses. Philadelphia had paid all claims on three of the properties but still disputed losses on the others. On the two properties that the dispute existed, Philadelphia did not dispute that they owed atleast part of the claim but not all of the claim. On the part not disputed, Philadelphia did not pay until after the applicable 75 day deadline.

Attorney’s Fees In Insurance Lawsuits

January 25, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Almost all insurance disputes are going to have situations where an attorney is involved. Too many times these disputes end up in lawsuits. Prior posts on this blog have shown how most situations are going to require the insurance company to pay or reimburse attorneys fees where the policy holder prevails in their claim.

In 2007 a case, Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Section 542.060, Texas Insurance Code, applied to not just the underlying claim at issue in a lawsuit but to also attorneys fees in situations where the insurance company did not pay for attorneys on behalf of the insured persons or business.

Section 542.060 assesses an 18% annual penalty on the attorneys fees that the insurance company did not pay for.

Recent Texas Case Concerning Uninsured Motorist Coverage

January 24, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a case that was originally filed in a State District Court in Dallas, Texas. The case was removed to Federal Court and promptly dismissed.

The style of the case is “Kenneth McQuinne v. American Home Assurance Company”. The only important issue in the case was whether or not a self insured vehicle was “uninsured” for purposes of the American Home Assurance Company policy argued about in this case.

The facts in this case are that McQuinne was involved in a wreck with a person named Sapkota. Sapkota was driving a vehicle owned by Enterprise Leasing. McQuinne reached a settlement with Sapkota’s insurance company for the policy limit of $50,000. McQuinne alleged that his damages exceeded that amount and consequently filed a claim with American seeking additional benefits under the policy American had issued on his employer, Turfgrass.

A Federal Case Discussing Notice To Insurance Company Of Claim

January 23, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court located outside of Texas. Cases that originate in Texas, including the Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie areas will end up in this Fifth Circuit Court when it is on an appeal.

A case decided in late December of 2009 discusses “notice” provisions in insurance policies. These provisions are important for the people or businesses who have these policies to understand.

The case is styled, “East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System v. Lexington Insurance Co”.

Corporation Changing Retirees Insurance Plan

January 22, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Very few people doubt that the face of America is changing in that more and more companies are changing the way benefits are provided to employees. The automotive industry is probably the biggest example of this change. Along with the automotive companies themselves, the changes effect all the companies that are intertwined with the big auto companies.

But it is not just the automotive companies. The same is happening in the airline industry, other transportation companies, and all phases of manufacturing. These changes include changes to wages, health care, retirement, and other benefits.

NewPage Corporation is a company that makes paper products. The Dayton Daily News recently ran an article wherein it reports on a change being made by NewPage in the way it handles health-care benfits for its premiums as it relates to their retirees.

More News On Katrina And Homeowners Insurance Claims

January 21, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, and surrounding areas are fortunate in that they are not having to deal with the difficulties being faced by homeowners in the Gulf Coast areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The damages following hurricanes Ike, Katrina, and others are causing nightmares for homeowners who are trying to get their insurance companies to properly and promptly pay the claims for damages to their homes.

The Sun Herald ran an article on December 21, 2009, that addresses more of the continueing problems these Gulf Coast residents are having with their insurance companies. The title of the article, “State Farm pays up, but argues award was in error”, doesn’t tell the whole story.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, recently paid a couple $179,100.31 for Katrina damage, but the check came to late to save the home of Henry and June Kuehn. The now years old claim of the Kuehn’s, was ordered to be paid by a U.S. District Judge, back in August of 2009. This ordered payment was based on an appraisal award reached by an appraiser for each side, State Farm and the Kuehn’s, and an umpire, who said the amount they considered was only for damage above the second-story water line in the house.

Commercial Insurance Policy In Texas And Insurance Company Duty

January 20, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion on a case on December 11, 2009, that will make insurance companies who have issued commercial policies, to take a second look before denying a claim in certain situations.

The case involved here is titled, D.R. Horton-Texas, LTD. v. Markel International Insurance Company, LTD. This case came out of the Texas Court of Appeals in Houston. It could have been a case arising out of the Dallas or Fort Worth or surrounding areas like Arlington, Grand Praire, or Irving.

In this case, a couple, the Holmes, purchased a home from the builder, D.R. Horton-Texas, LTD. Defects in construction were discovered and as a result of these defects, mold had infested the home. The Holmes sued Horton, saying Horton was responsible for the problems Holmes was experiencing. It appeared ,a sub-contractor, Ramirez, was the person who caused the problems. Ramirez had an insurance policy from Markel International Insurance Company, LTD. Horton sought coverage from Markel, based on the Ramirez policy wherein Horton was an additional insured. Markel refused to get involved and Horton eventually settled the case, then sought reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement payment from Horton, the result of which was this lawsuit.

Hurricane Ike Claims And National Flood Insurance

January 19, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

For those of us living in the Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie areas of Texas, National Flood Insurance programs are not usually an issue. But this type of insurance is available and sold in Dallas, Tarrant, Parker, and other counties throughout the State of Texas. Knowing a little bit about these programs is helpful and will put you more in the drivers seat when talking with your insurance agent when considering buying this type of insurance.

As with a lot of Federally controlled programs, the consumer is limited in his available remedies when he is mis-treated by the companies administering these programs. The Houston Chronicle ran a story recently giving an example of how these Federal Flood Insurance programs can be nightmares for the consumers involved. The article is titled “Ike Case HIts A New Obstacle”, and illustrates some of the problems homeowners experience when making a claim for coverage.

When there is a dispute, the insurance adjuster will try to get the homeowner to agree to going to arbitration as a way to settle the insurance dispute. Most people will jump at this option thinking to themselves that this will result in a quick settlement and save time and money, including attorneys fees. It turns out that the arbitration process is not necessarily quick nor cheap.

A Case Trying To Prove Insurance Coverage Exists In A Commercial Policy

January 18, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The following is a short discussion of a case trying to interpret Missouri law, in part. The relevance to people in Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, or Grand Prairie areas is that the case was heard in a Texas Court in the Southern District of Texas and that the appeal was to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is a Court that makes decisions regarding lots of Texas cases.

The case is Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Maverick Tube Corporation. The opinion of the Court was issued on December 10, 2009.

The dispute involved the application of Missouri state law in determining if an insurance “occurrence” and the duty of the insurance company to indemnify existed.