Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance lawyers know they have to look at every case as if it will go to trial.

An attorney has to always keep the client informed as a reasonable timeline of events such as the initial paperwork or discovery.  Times when to expect to take depositions and attend a mediation also should be discussed.  It seems like insurance companies have become more likely to spend significant amounts of money to defend first-party insurance cases, resulting in extended litigation.  Further, it is nearly impossible to get to trial on the first trial setting.  Never lead a client to believe the insurance company is likely to settle quickly.  Clients get impatient as time goes by.  Keeping them informed helps relieve the anxiety.

When the insurance company hires an expert, the attorney must know what the opinions of that expert and what they will testify about at trial.  This may make the difference between the expert being your worst nightmare or your best witness.  The cost of the deposition is well worth the money spent.  A lot can be learned about the expert from other attorneys who have confronted and this helps to formulate questions to be asked of the expert.  A good expert deposition can help a case get settled.

Insurance lawyers need a good process for taking on a case.  This includes a good intake sheet and a thorough discussion about the case.

I.  One issue to discuss is the number or prior claims that the client has had in the past.  What repairs were competed?  An insurance company adjuster will use prior claims or lack of repairs to their advantage if possible.  Adjusters have access to this information and will use it fruitfully for themselves.  Having copies of repair receipts and photos are very helpful for the claimant.  Sometimes an expert is needed.

II.  Inspection tends to be the part of a case that has the most varied, and often polarized account of what exactly happened to cause the claim.  The attorney needs to know if the client was present when the property was inspected.  Too many times, the adjuster acted on his own without the claimant being present.  Knowing what the adjuster did can often times help the claim.  It may increase the value of the claim or lessen it.  The insured needs to be sure and point out all the damage the insured is aware of and know whether or not the adjuster looked for other damage

Attorneys handling insurance claim denials and their clients, need to understand some basics about what needs to be done when a claim is denied.

Before reaching the court house steps, in most cases, the parties should consider possible resolutions to avoid trial.  The client may not always have the best facts, or the upper hand in negotiations, but counsel should advise the client of the potential risks and rewards of proceeding toward trial.  Ethically, lawyers have a duty to convey all offers made by the insurance company, and clients should be advised on any potential counterclaim risk, if applicable.  Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 167 may severely affect the way a judgement is handled in the event the case goes to trial and the plaintiff obtains less than what was offered.  The client must understand the risk involved.  In the end, he or she should be comfortable with any decision that is made after receiving full counseling and advice.

There is one of two things that have happened when the parties find themselves at the courthouse ready to pick a jury and present their case.  It is because 1) the plaintiff has overvalued the case, or 2) the defendant has undervalued it.  Preparation in the initial stages of the case can be just as valuable as what you do in the courtroom during trial.

Having an experienced insurance law attorney is vital.  Otherwise you can end up with a situation that occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.  The case is styled, Mike and Jacqueline Sanchez v. Safeco Insurance of Indiana.

The Sanchez’s filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.  In other words, the Sanchez wished to dismiss their lawsuit against Safeco.  However, by filing the motion “without prejudice” would allow them to refiled the lawsuit against Safeco.  For this reason, Safeco contested the motion.

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that as a general rule, motions for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.  The primary purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.