Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Federal Court – Amount In Controversy

February 5, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers and lawyers who practice law in Federal Court know the requirements for a case to be in Federal Court. Most of the time, lawyers representing clients who are suing an insurance company try to stay out of Federal Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 1332(a), for an insurance company to have a case be tried in Federal Court it must be proven that the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. When a case is removed premised upon diversity jurisdiction, courts determine the amount in controversy in light of “the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.” As a general rule, the amount in controversy alleged in the State Court petition determines the amount in controversy so long as it was pled in good faith.

This issue arose in a case in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case is styled, Nicolas Martinez v. Liberty Insurance Corporation.

Properly Suing The Insurance Adjuster

February 2, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

The courts interpretation of the new rules regarding suing an insurance adjuster need special attention. This is illustrated in the 2019, opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division. The case is styled, Barnes Burk Self Storage, LLC v. United Fire & Casualty Company and Traci McCormick.

Barnes sued United and McCormick in State Court for claims arising from a wind and hail storm. McCormick is a Texas resident and her presence in the lawsuit defeats diversity jurisdiction.

On December 7, 2018, Barnes sued United and McCormick in state court for violations of Texas law relating to its insurance claim. On January 25, 2019, United informed Barnes that it had assumed any liability McCormick would have to Barnes in the case. On February 7, 2019, United removed the case to federal court, alleging that diversity existed between Barnes and United and that this Court should disregard McCormick’s citizenship due to United’s assumption of McCormick’s liability pursuant to Texas Insurance Code, Section 542A.006. On May 23, 2019, this Court rejected this argument and remanded the case.

Insurance Lawsuits – Substance Of Allegations

February 1, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance cases in Federal Court require the pleadings to be substantive. This is seen in a 2019, decision from the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division. The decision is styled, Alvira Blue v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.

Allstate filed a motion with the Court requesting that Blue’s claims for misrepresentation under Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060(a)(1), be dismissed.

This Court granted the motion and discussed.

Insurance Property Claims

January 29, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance property claims are a very big part of claims made against insurance companies. As part of those property claims that get denied, it is important to properly prove the property damages by attaching a dollar value to them. One way of proving the dollar value of these property damages is through the use of expert testimony. Proving property damages by way of expert was a recent topic in a 2019, opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. This opinion is styled, Brandy Ventures, LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company.

This case arises from alleged water damage resulting from a broken pipe on commercial property owed by Brandy Ventures and insured by Mesa. Brandy alleges Mesa unfairly denied the claim and filed this lawsuit.

Brandy appointed Roy Young of YPA Public Adjusters, LLC, to testify regarding water damage. Mesa filed a motion to strike any testimony of Young.

Bad Faith Insurance – Trebling Of Damages

January 26, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance lawyers know that if a jury is convinced of the wrong an insurance company has committed that there is a chance to recover a trebling of the actual damages in the case. So how does that work? This is discussed in a 2019, opinion from the Texas First Court of Appeals. The opinion is styled, Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Syndicate Numbers 2020, 1084, 2001, 457, 510, 2791, 2987, 3000, 1221, 5000 And Navigators Insurance Company UK v. Prime Natural Resources, Inc.

The facts of this case can be read by reading the opinion. The case was tried to a jury and the jury found in favor of Prime. The jury also awarded treble damages based on the conduct of the insurance companies. The focus here is on how the Court dealt with the issue of treble damages.

As a result, Underwriters argues that even if Prime were entitled to recover additional Policy benefits, it is not entitled to additional damages under Chapter 541 of the Insurance Code.

Stipulation Of Damages In Insurance Disputes

January 25, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is another case wherein there was a failure to properly stipulate to the amount of damages involved in the case and thus, ended up having to litigate his case in Federal Court, rather than the State Court in which the lawsuit was filed.

The case is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and is styled, Olga Rodriguez v. State Farm Lloyds.

Olga filed her claim against State Farm in State District Court and State Farm timely removed the case to Federal Court.

Insurance Cases – Stipulation Of Damages

January 22, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

As stated before, insurance companies prefer to litigate cases in federal court, whereas, lawyers suing insurance companies prefer to litigate in state court. The laws are such that the insurance companies get their way most of the time. However, one of the ways to keep a case in state court involves properly stipulating to the amount of damages at issue in the case.

This issue is discussed in the 2019, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, opinion styled, Osiel Rubio v. State Farm Lloyds.

Rubio filed suit arising out of an insurance claim against State Farm in state court. State Farm timely removed the case to federal court. Rubio filed a Motion to Remand which was denied.

ERISA – Life Insurance

January 19, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These cases are tough even under the best of circumstances. Lawyers who handle ERISA cases do not spend time advertising their great results. The reason is the ERISA law prohibits “great” results. A win is just getting what you should have received in the first place. But wins are few and far between, especially in the United States Fifth Circuit.

Here is a case from the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division. It’s styled is, Edythe Koch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

In this case, the Court denied MetLife’s motion for summary judgment which is unusual in these cases, thus, at first blush one thinks a win is coming. But when the Judge conducted it’s own review of the record, the Court upheld the plan administrator’s denial of accidental life insurance benefits.

Personal Injury Protection Benefits And Offset

January 18, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most of the time, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits are paid when a proper claim for them is made and then if a claim for Uninsured Motorist (UIM) benefits is made, the insurance company takes/gets an offset for the PIP benefits in any settlement that occurs. But what if the case is tried to a jury?

A case involving PIP and UIM benefits was tried to a jury in Jasper County and a Judgement was entered in favor of the insured. No offset was given for the PIP benefits that had been paid by the insurance company. How did this happen?

An appeal was taken to the Beaumont Court of Appeals and the case is styled, Allstate Fire And Casualty Insurance Company v. Andy Alfred.

Stating A Claim Against An Insurance Adjuster

January 15, 2020 | Mark S. Humphreys

Claims for violations of the Texas Insurance Code must be stated properly against an insurance company adjuster. One way of doing this is talked about in this Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, opinion styled, Jeanette Kotzur, David Kotzur v. Metropolitan Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas, Bryant Tullous, Michael Esmay.

This case involves a claim for damages arising out of a wind and hailstorm that is alleged to have caused damages to property owned by the Kotzur’s. Metropolitan is the insurance company and the adjusters were Tullous and Esmay.

The Kotzur’s sued Metropolitan and the adjusters in State Court. Metropolitan removed the case to Federal Court asserting the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, that the Kotzur’s are citizens of Texas and Metropolitan is a citizen of states other than Texas. Metropolitan also asserts that the adjusters should be disregarded for citizenship purposes because the adjusters were improperly joined in the lawsuit in an effort to defeat diversity of citizenship. Metropolitan asserts that the Kotzur’s have not properly asserted claims against the adjusters. The Kotzur’s assert that they have properly asserted claims against the adjusters.