The Chinese drywall cases that have been in the news the last year or so, are primarily affecting home owners along the Gulf Coast. If you live in Texas you are not likely to be affected by the claims resulting from these defective drywalls. Especially if you live in the crowded Dallas and Fort Worth areas. However if you live in areas such as Louisiana and Mississippi, these cases are attracting a lot of attention.

The Times-Picayune recently ran a story that addressed the drywall cases that have been causing problems since the hurricanes in recent years. This story informs its readers that New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton is the lead plaintiff in a 591-page class action Chinese drywall suit. The company being sued is Knauf Plasterboard Tainjin Co. Ltd., a Chinese company manufacturing company producing the drywall.

The drywall at issue in this case is supposedly causing homes to corrode and making people sick. In the context of homeowners insurance, a lot of insurance companies are refusing coverage for the losses caused by this drywall being installed in the homes.

The Texas Department of Insurance has recently released the Commissioners Order regarding State Farm Homeowners rate reduction and refund fight.

This order is the result of a re-hearing . The original reduction order was first issued in 2003, but was remanded by the Third Court of Appeals in Texas in 2008 to the Texas Department of Insurance for further proceedings due to their finding that a portion of the underlying law enacted in 2003 was unconstitutional.

The total amount of the refund, including interest, is estimated to be about $310 million. Individual amounts will vary among policyholders, with differences based, in large part, on the length of time with the company and the amount of premium paid to State Farm. Further information regarding refunds or premium credits to policyholders, both current and former, will be made available pending any appeal of the order.

Most people do not understand that there are two main kinds of law. The first, most people are familiar with, and we will call statutory law. This is the law that is written down by the legislative branch of government. For purposes of Insurance Law, it is the Sections, Chapters, and Subchapters of the Insurance Code.

The other kind of law, which most people are not aware of, is called the “common law”. The common law is the law that applies to situations even though the law is not specifically written down in a book somewhere.

Under Texas law, there is a “common law” duty for an insurance company to deal with one of its insureds in certain ways. This is called the the duty of good faith and fair dealing. When an insurance company does not honor its common law duty of dealing with one of its insureds in good faith, it is called “bad faith”. This concept was discussed by the Texas Supreme Court in 1987, in the case Arnold v. Nat. County Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This blog does not try to spend time on the health care debate occurring on the National scene. Rather the focus here is to make people aware of their rights as they relate to their dealings with insurance companies and why they need an experience Insurance Law Attorney when faced with a problem when dealing with an insurance company. The occassional news item is thrown in when it relates to a large number of people, some of whom may be in Texas.

Recent articles on the Chinese drywall, sold by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, affecting many residents along the Gulf Coast pointed out that new construction and remodeling done after hurricanes hit the areas on the Gulf Coast have left many homeowners in rough financial situations. This is because many insurance companies refuse to cover the losses resulting from using this drywall.

One recent article points out that the deadline for involvement in a national class action lawsuit against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin expired on December 2. This lawsuit involves about 35,000 Florida homes where about 30 percent of the installations of this drywall are believed to have occurred.

A resident of Grand Prairie recently caught his insurance agent in Dallas committing fraud. The agent was taking the cash payments for the premiums from the resident and hand writing a receipt. Sounds okay so far. Next, the agent was pocketing the money rather than forwarding the payment to the insurance company. This could have happened in Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas.

The agent would have continued to have got away with this except that the resident had an accident and got sued and when he turned the lawsuit papers over to the insurance company and was denied coverage the resident went to an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. A subsequent investigation revealed what was happening and a lawsuit is currently going forward against the agent.

Most of the time when people think of insurance fraud, they think in terms of someone staging a theft, an accident, or committing arson to recover monies from an insurance policy. This type of insurance fraud is defined and talked about in the Texas Penal Code, Chapter 35. Section 35.02, describes some of what constitutes an offense and also describes the penalty. The range of punishment is from a Class C misdemeanor, which is a ticket offense, all the way to a Felony of the First Degree, which is punishable by up to life in prison. The monetary cost includes fines up to $10,000, court costs, and restitution.

The general rule in Texas is that a policy holder has a duty to cooperate with his insurance company when the insurance company is investigating a claim.

Whether your house in Arlington burns down or you have a vehicle wreck in Grand Prairie the answer is about the same. Ditto for a life insurance claim made in Weatherford or a health insurance claim made in Fort Worth. Every insurance policy is going to place upon you a duty to cooperate with the insurance companies investigation of the claim.

Generally speaking you would have a duty to report the claim as soon as is possible. You would be asked and expected to make a statement to the insurance company. Often times you are going to be asked to fill out reports and other paperwork. You may have to get estimates or appraisals. If the loss being claimed is for physical injury, then an independent medical exam performed by a Doctor of the insurance companies choosing may be necessary.

A resident of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or any other area in Texas can sue an insurance company for violations of the Texas Insurance Code under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This is important because both of these areas of the law allow for favorable theories of recovery to the consumer who is wronged when dealing with an insurance company.

Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.151, specifically says that a person who sustains actual damages may bring an action against another for damages caused by the other person engaging in an act or practice, “specificaly enumerated in Section 17.46(b), Business & Commerce Code, as an unlawful deceptive trade practice …” The Business & Commerce Code is where the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act is located. The whole purpose of the DTPA is to prevent companies from doing wrongs to consumers.

In business and legal circles, Section 17.46(b) is referred to as the “laundry list” of things companies are prohibited from doing. Violations of this laundry list can result in actions by the States Attorney General plus numerous private causes of action by the consumer.

An interesting case has recently been reported in The Boston Globe. It is a lawsuit about whether or not the State of Massachusetts should be providing insurance coverage for adjunct professors in the public higher education system.

Rather than getting into a discussion about the insurance that a business or governmental agency should be providing its employees let us talk about a specific issue that comes up in health insurance situations. Most of the time when someone buys health insurance they are going to be required to fill out an application which asks questions about the applicants past and present medical conditions.

Almost every health insurance policy is going to have conditions that are not covered by the insurance. The conditions will be pre-existing conditions and also conditions that “manifiest” themselves within 30 days of the inception of the policy.

An Appeals Court in San Antonio, Texas, has recently handed down a decison that discusses the above question. The case is, Lancer Insurance Company v. Oscar Perez, et al, and was decided on November 4, 2009.

The Lancer case involved members of a high school band going on an overnight field trip. The driver of a bus transporting the band was infected with active turberculosis. This disease was discovered by the passengers and subsequent tests proved positive for some of the band members. The bus driver and bus company were sued for negligently exposing the band members to the disease.

Upon being sued, the bus company made a written demand to Lancer to defend the lawsuit pursuant to the business automobile insurance policy Lancer had issued covering the bus. Lancer refused to defend and the case went to trial wherein the passengers were awarded $5.25 million in total damages.

Let’s say you are a Grand Prairie or Arlington resident. You purchased an auto policy from an agent in Fort Worth. The price quoted seemed way too high and you asked the agent if there was anything that could be done to get the premium lower. The agent says, “Yes, we can take your teenage son off the policy.” You say okay. The agent sells you a policy that excludes coverage if your teenage son is driving the car.

You can guess what happens next – the son drives the car and gets involved in a wreck. Now what? Numerous lawsuits have been filed in these situations and outcomes will sometimes be different depending on the facts of the accident and more importantly, the wording in the insurance policy that excludes the son.

Courts will look closely at the wording in the policy at issue but as a general rule, these exclusions are found by the Courts to be valid. It has been held that public policy dictates the allowance of such exclusions to enable insured motorists with children having bad driving records to secure insurance they can afford, rather than being relegated to securing coverage from an assigned risk pool at a much higher cost. This issue was discussed at length in the case, Wright v. Rodney D. Young Ins. Agcy. Wright was a 1995, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case.

Contact Information