State Bar of Texas
Texas Trial Lawyers Association
College of the State Bar of Texas

|
A question for lawyers who handle life insurance claim denials has to do with whether or not mental anguish is recoverable against the life insurance company who denied the claim.  This is addressed in a 1995, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston.
In 1982, Terri and David Beaston bought life insurance policies from Ted Heaton, a State Farm Life Insurance Company agent.  The Beastons failed to pay the premium on David’s policy due on December 28, 1983.  His policy lapsed as of December 28, 1983, and the thirty-one day grace period expired on January 28, 1984.  Three days after the expiration of the grace period, David died in an automobile accident.  State Farm refused to pay the benefits under his life insurance policy, claiming that coverage had expired before his death.
Terri brought suit asserting that the Texas Insurance Code had been violated.  She also contended that the terms of the policy guaranteed payment of a dividend at death which should have been used to pay a part of the premium that was in arrears and thereby “cure” the policy’s lapse.
Continue reading ›

|
Life insurance attorneys often have to make a decision on whether or not to file suit against the agent who sold a policy.  In that regard, what are the time limits for doing so.
This case involves claims for life insurance benefits and disability benefits.  The policies at issue were purchased in 2005.  A lawsuit was filed in 2018.
Continue reading ›

|
Insurance lawyers will often have a case wherein an expert is needed.  When this happens it is important to understand how to get an expert’s testimony admissible in a court proceeding.  Here is a 2023, opinion that discusses expert’s.  It is from the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  It is styled, Firmus Management And Construction LLC v. Third Coast Insurance Company.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets the standard the admissibility of expert testimony.  Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
Continue reading ›

|
Life insurance is an option, as far as this author knows, under all ERISA plans.  Life insurance is treated virtually the same as other benefits under ERISA plans.
This lawsuit is brought under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. (ERISA) after her husband Karthik died in the crash of a relatively small private airplane on which he was a passenger.  Recovery was denied under ERISA because of an express exclusion of death or injury incurred as a passenger in such an aircraft.  Summary judgment was eventually granted in the district court in favor of the defendants.
Continue reading ›

|
For life insurance attorneys the topic here is not usually a concern.  However, it will be occasionally and the lawyers need to know about it.  This is a 2023 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The opinion is styled, Lew McGinnis v. Nationwide Life & Annuity Insurance Co.
This a life insurance case that was filed in Texas.  McGinnis asserted that he was a citizen of Texas.  Nationwide filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss contending, inter alia, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because MGinnis was an Oklahoma citizen when the lawsuit was filed.
To establish his Texas citizenship on the date he filed suit, McGinnis must demonstrate that he resided in Texas on that date and intended to continuing residing in Texas.  The relevant factors include the places where the litigant exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has driver’s and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family.
Continue reading ›

|
Life Insurance Attorneys need to read this case to see how one court handled allegations of bad faith in a life insurance situation.  This is a 2023, opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The opinion is styled, Sue Williams v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company.
Williams sued Minnesota Life alleging it fraudulently represented that the policy would cover a death resulting from accidental asphyxiation.
Minnesota filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion asking the Court to dismiss Williams claims for bad faith in it’s handling of her claim for life insurance benefits.
Continue reading ›

|
Life Insurance Attorney need to read this 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The opinion is styled, Sue Williams v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company.
Sue Williams is the beneficiary of an accidental death insurance policy issued by Minnesota Life.  Michael Williams is alleged to have died due to accidental asphyxia.
Sue sued Minnesota Life for various violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Breach of Contract.
Continue reading ›

|
Life Insurance Attorney need to read this 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The opinion is styled, Sue Williams v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company.
Sue Williams is the beneficiary of an accidental death insurance policy issued by Minnesota Life.  Michael Williams is alleged to have died due to accidental asphyxia.
Sue sued Minnesota Life for various violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Breach of Contract.
Continue reading ›

|
Life Insurance Lawyers need to read this 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The opinion is styled, Adrianne Archer Graves v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.
This is a dispute over proceeds of the life insurance policy of Decedent Timothy Howick.  Plaintiff Adrianne Graves, the Dependent Administrator of Timothy Howick’s Estate contends that the Estate was entitled to the proceeds.  Defendant and Cross Claimant Christopher McAtamney, the former spouse of Timothy Howick, contends that he was so entitled. Both Metlife and Marilyn Howick, Timothy Howick’s mother, contend that Ms. Howick is entitled to these benefits. Graves, McAtamney, Marilyn Howick, and MetLife are all parties to this suit.
This case has many motions in it and much discussion of issues.  Here the focus will be on the Court’s interpretation of the policy language.
Continue reading ›

|
Here is a hail damage claim that has a frequently heard assertion by the insurance company.  That assertion being that whatever hail damage exists occurred outside the policy period.
The facts presented in the motion are lengthy and should be read.  Here is the analysis of the case by the Magistrate Judge.
Continue reading ›
Contact Information
Weatherford Location
211 S Rusk St
Weatherford, TX 76086
Phone: 817-599-9922
Grand Prairie Location
123 W Main St #300
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
Phone: 972-263-3722
Fort Worth Location
1301 Ballinger St
Fort Worth, TX 76102
For Other State Wide Locations: 817-944-1016

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design