Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Here is a Dallas, Texas opinion that insurance lawyers need to read.  It is from the Dallas Court of Appeals and is styled, American National County Mutual Insurance Company v. Jonathan A. Medina.

On October 30, 2009, Angel Freeman ran a stop sign and crashed into Medina who was riding a motorcycle.  The cycle was totaled and Medina was injured.  Angel had a 1998 Dodge Ram that was listed as a covered vehicle on an ANPAC policy belonging to Paul and Katie Freeman.  Angel is Paul’s sister.

After the wreck, a question arose as to who owned the Ram. and whether it was insured by Paul’s policy.  If the truck was not owned by Paul, it could not be covered by the policy.  Paul and Angel both told ANPAC that Paul sold the vehicle to Angel for cash four weeks before the accident, on October 1, 2009, and both gave written statements to ANPAC to that effect.  Angel never put the title into his name.  ANPAC cancelled the policy effective October 1, and refunded premiums paid.  On December 8, 2009, ANPAC  notified Medina of the decision and closed the file.

Most of the time, Courts are happy to have a case dismissed from their docket.  An Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, opinion is an exception to that general situation.  The opinion is styled, Mike And Jacqueline Sanchez v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana.

The Sanchez’s filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and the Court denied the motion.  Here is why.

The Fifth Circuit 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.

The papers filed in Court have to be proper when suing an insurance company.  A Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division opinion illustrates this rule.  The opinion is styled, Alfredo Murillo Jr., et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.

Alfredo suffered damage after a hail and or windstorm and sued Allstate alleging Allstate failed to “cover the true costs of repairs … including but not limited to, repair and/or replacement of the roof and any exterior damage,” and that Allstate “failed to properly adjust the claim and summarily improperly paid the claim.”  Alfredo’s complaint contains no other specific factual allegations beyond general allegations that Allstate’s investigation of the claims was “unreasonable,” and that Allstate “failed to properly scope” Alfredo’s damages, and that Allstate delayed in the payment of the true cost of damages.  In all other respects, Alfredo’s complaint is a form petition that merely restates the legal elements of his claims.

Allstate filed this  motion for partial dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted and Rule 9(b) for failure to plead with particularity.

The statute of limitations is a legal issue that must be taken into account in every case.  This case from the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division,does a good job of discussing the statute of limitations in insurance cases.  The case is styled, Gilberto Rodriguez v. State Farm Lloyds.

This is an insurance coverage dispute that arose out of a water pipe bursting in Gilberto’s home.  State Farm filed a motion for summary judgement, part of which dealt with the limitations issue.  The Court granted State Farm’s motion.

Here are relevant facts and discussion:

Whether you are talking about life insurance claims, homeowners claims, disability claims, auto claims, or other types of first party claims, policy benefits are the basic recovery allowed for an insurance company breach of the contractual obligations.  An insurer’s refusal to pay the insured’s claim causes damages in at least the amount of the policy benefits wrongfully withheld.  This is supported in the Texas Supreme Court cases, Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. and Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel.

In addition, the same court stated in Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, an insured should be able to recover consequential damages that are the foreseeable result of the insurer’s breach of contract.  Numerous cases hold that insurance policies are subject to the same rules as other contracts.  One of the best established rules is that:

Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally; i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.