Need Insurance Law Attorney For GAP Insurance

People in Weatherford, Aledo, Azle, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Millsap, Brock, Mineral Wells, and other places in Parker County need to know when it is time to get an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.
The Houston Court of Appeals, First District, issued an opinion in 2009, that is worth reading. The style of the case is, Russell W. Harrison v. Charlie Thomas Ford, Ltd. D/B/A Charlie Thomas Ford. This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Charlie Thomas Ford.
The background facts of the case is not real relevant here because the case was essentially resolved based on statutes dealing with the sale of credit and GAP insurance.
Procedurally, Harrison alleged that Charlie Thomas Ford sold GAP insurance in a manner that did not comply with Finance Code, Section 348.209 and Insurance Code, Section 4055.014.
Harrison claimed the following statute applies to a motor-vehicle installment sale:
Section 348.209. Requirements for Including Insurance Cost in Contract (a) If insurance is included as an itemized charge in a retail installment contract:
(1) the insurance must be written:
(A) at lawful rates;
(B) in accordance with the Insurance Code; and
(C) by a company authorized to do business in this state; and
(2) the disclosure requirements of this section must be satisfied.
Harrison then pointed to the following statute in the Insurance Code:
Section 4055.014. Disclosures Required Before Issuance of Insurance Except as provided by Section 4055.105, insurance coverage may not be issued under this chapter unless:
(1) at each location at which sales of the coverage occur, brochures or other written materials are prominently displayed and readily available to a prospective consumer that:
(A) summarize, clearly and correctly, the material terms of the coverage afforded to consumers, including the identity of the insurer;
(B) disclose that the coverage offered by the specialty license holder may duplicate coverage already provided by a consumer’s personal auto insurance policy, homeowner’s insurance policy, personal liability insurance policy, or another source of coverage;
(C) state that, except as specifically provided by another law of this state or the United States, the purchase by the consumer of the kind of insurance offered is not required to complete the associated consumer transaction;
(D) describe the process for filing a claim for benefits; and
(E) contain any additional information required by the commissioner by rule regarding the price, benefits, exclusions, conditions, or other limitations of the coverage; and (2) evidence of coverage is provided to each consumer who purchases the coverage.
Harrison concludes in his papers filed with the court “it is undisputed that the insurance is in fact sold in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of the Texas Insurance Code ….”
As the Court pointed out, there is a problem with Harrison’s argument in that there is an exception to Insurance Code, Section 4055.014. He is ignoring Insurance Code, Section 4055.105.
Section 4055.105 is titled “Exemption From Certain Disclosure Requirements.”
It says:
“A specialty license holder and the license holder’s representative are not required to make the disclosures required by Section 4055.014 as that section relates to the sale or delivery of a credit insurance product that is subject to this subchapter if the license holder or representative complies with all disclosure requirements prescribed by another provision of this code or another law of this state or the United States with regard to the sale or delivery of that product.”
Accordingly, this Court upheld the grant of summary judgment by the trial court.
It is hard to be critical of what happened in this case without knowing more about the underlying facts, but for whatever reason Harrison appears to have “cherry picked” a part of law that was helpful to his case and ignored other parts of the law. This is rarely or never going to work.