Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance Cases – Mootness And Standing

March 15, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a somewhat lengthy opinion in a case involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and a disability claim. The opinion is from the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and is styled, Jason Thomas Young v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company and Matrix Absence Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, Young, was insured by way of an ERISA disability plan through his employer when he was injured in an automobile accident. He applied for and received disability benefits. At a later date is recovered a substantial settlement from the insurance company of the person with whom he had the accident. The disability plan administrator then attempted to offset the monies Young received from payments Young was receiving for disability pay.

Young filed suit and the plan administrator rescinded their earlier decision to offset payments. After agreeing to make regular payments for disability without taking into account any offsets, the plan administrator filed a Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Young’s claim based on the assertion that the matter was now moot and that Young has no standing to continue the lawsuit.

Prompt Payment Of Claim Act – Bad Faith Insurance

March 13, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance lawyers run into situations where a person eventually recovers life insurance benefits they are entitled to receive. A common situation where this occurs is when a life insurance lawyer sends a notice letter to the insurance company letting the insurance company know that the claim has not been paid and that if it is not paid immediately that a lawsuit will be filed. Then, the insurer pays. Is that the end of it?

Not necessarily. The Prompt Payment of Claims statute , Texas Insurance Code, Section 542.054, says in one sentence, “This subchapter shall be liberally construed to promote the prompt payment of claims.” This statute was used in the 1999, Tyler Court of Appeals opinion, Dunn v. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co. It was also used in the 1997, Texarkana Court of Appeals opinion, Bekins Moving & storage Co. v. Williams. And in the 1997, Federal Eastern District of Texas opinion, Teate v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York.

The meaning of ‘liberal construction” has been applied expansively under other consumer statutes, as discussed in the 1981, Texas Supreme Court opinion, Cameron Terrell v. Garrett, Inc. Liberal construction mandates that courts give the statute the most comprehensive application possible without doing violence to the statute’s terms.

Bad Faith Claims And Statute Of Limitations

March 8, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Claim Denial lawyers need to have a full understanding of the rules regarding the time periods for filing a lawsuit and how to avoid pitfalls in this area of the law. This is discussed in a Western District of Texas, Austin Division opinion styled, Kobra Dadfar and Esmail Roostaie v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

This is a summary judgment opinion wherein the underlying case contains allegations of Insurance Code violations and breach of contract among other causes of action.

Liberty filed a motion for summary judgement alleging that Plaintiffs have let the statute of limitations expire and thus, the case should be dismissed.

Delay In Paying Claim – Claim Denial

March 6, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Claim Denial Attorneys need to read this opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. It is styled, Caramba, Inc. d/b/a Pueblo Viejo v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

This is a summary judgment case in favor of Nationwide.

This insurance coverage dispute arises out of claim filed seeking damages for various violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The focus here is on Section 542.058. The timeline of Facts of the case by a reading of the case. Discussed here is the Courts reasoning in the case so that Insurance Lawyers can understand how the Courts interpret Section 542.058 when deciding the case.

Life Insurance – ERISA – Part 4

March 1, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

This post is a continuation of Parts 1, 2, and 3, posted earlier. This case involves a life insurance policy claim denial that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The opinion is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and is styled, Erica Talasek v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al.

As in most ERISA claims, the case is being decided on competing Motions for Summary Judgement. The Court found in favor of Unum and explained it’s finding in detail.

Texas Winter Weather Claims Denial

February 27, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas homeowners have just experienced the worst loss state wide that has ever been experienced. Homeowners will be reeling from the damage and hopefully the insurance companies treat all their customers fairly. Unfortunately, there will be many customers who end up having their claim denied for one reason or another.

Here are some things to think about as it relates to weather related property claim.

After the historic and widespread property loss and damage resulting from the recent Texas freeze, home and business owners will be turning to their insurance provider for help. Some of those insurance claims will be denied unfairly and property owners will turn to Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA) members for assistance in getting their homes and businesses repaired.

Life Insurance Claim – ERISA – 2

February 22, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Repeating what was stated in the post immediate to this one, “It is important to understand how difficult claims that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) can be. The law in this area of law is very tough for claimants.” This is illustrated again in a December 2020, opinion styled, Erica Talasek v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al. The opinion is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The insured, Ben Talasek, had life insurance through a Plan his employer, NOV, offered. NOV delegated authority and discretion to UNUM to handle claims and made benefit determinations.

Ben was covered by basic life insurance coverage and Ben also enrolled in a voluntary supplemental plan during November 2013. Unlike the basic life insurance, which did not require medical underwriting, the supplemental life insurance required an employee to submit evidence of insurability and obtain approval for coverage by Unum. On January 18, 2014, Unum sent Ben a letter informing him of an error in his application and the need for additional information. Around this time, Ben was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Ben called Unum on January 21, 2014 to check on the status of his application and was told about the January 18 letter. Ben corrected the error on the Evidence of Insurability Form and supplied additional information. Ben called Unum again on February 12, 2014 to check on the status of the application and was told that the standard turnaround time for a coverage decision was 4-6 weeks. On March 3, 2014,several weeks after receiving his cancer diagnosis, Ben provided blood and urine samples and basic health history as part of Unum’s requirement that he prove insurability prior to approval of coverage. He did not mention the cancer diagnosis.

Life Insurance Claim Denial – ERISA

February 20, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

It is important to understand how difficult claims that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) can be. The law in this area of law is very tough for claimants. This is illustrated again in a December 2020, opinion styled, Erica Talasek v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al. The opinion is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The insured, Ben Talasek, had life insurance through a Plan his employer, NOV, offered. NOV delegated authority and discretion to UNUM to handle claims and made benefit determinations.

Ben was covered by basic life insurance coverage and Ben also enrolled in a voluntary supplemental plan during November 2013. Unlike the basic life insurance, which did not require medical underwriting, the supplemental life insurance required an employee to submit evidence of insurability and obtain approval for coverage by Unum. On January 18, 2014, Unum sent Ben a letter informing him of an error in his application and the need for additional information. Around this time, Ben was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Ben called Unum on January 21, 2014 to check on the status of his application and was told about the January 18 letter. Ben corrected the error on the Evidence of Insurability Form and supplied additional information. Ben called Unum again on February 12, 2014 to check on the status of the application and was told that the standard turnaround time for a coverage decision was 4-6 weeks. On March 3, 2014,several weeks after receiving his cancer diagnosis, Ben provided blood and urine samples and basic health history as part of Unum’s requirement that he prove insurability prior to approval of coverage. He did not mention the cancer diagnosis.

Insurance Claims Denial Law Firms – Hail Damage Claims

February 15, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers who handle hail damage claims will need to read this opinion from the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. It is styled, Mazhar Footsteps, LLC v. Amguard Insurance Company and Michael Clayton Hepburn.

This lawsuit arises from damages incurred by a hailstorm. Based on the way the claim was handled, Mazhar sued Amguard and the adjuster, Hepburn. The lawsuit was filed in State District Court. Amguard timely removed the case to Federal District Court based on diversity jurisdiction and in its notice of removal, Amguard elected under Texas Insurance Code, Section 542A.006, to accept whatever responsibility Hepburn might have to Mazhar for Hepburn’s acts or omissions related to the claim.

Mazhar timely filed this Motion To Remand.

Insurance Claims Denial Law Firm – Federal Court Motions

February 13, 2021 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance companies always want to litigate cases in Federal Court. The Judges and rules related to proceedings tend to skew in favor of insurance companies. Here is a 2020 opinion where the insured actually got a favorable ruling. The opinion is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and is styled, Caramba, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

Caramba is the named insured under a Nationwide policy.

Caramba filed a claim for damages after Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. On August 27, 2020, Nationwide filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).