Home Owners Policies

Claims Handling Process / Getting Paid On A Homeowners Policy Claim

November 8, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Everyone in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Irving, Mesquite, Garland, Carrollton, Duncanville, De Soto, and other places through out Texas need to know how to make sure they get paid properly and fully when making a homeowners claim.

One way is to see an experienced Insurance Law Attorney early in the claim. Another way is to make sure you have good records of your possessions.

The Wall Street Journal published an article on October 13, 2011, authored by Lori Bennett. The title is “Accounting for Disaster: Itemizing Your Home.”

Flood Insurance Coverage

October 16, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Whether you live in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Peaster, Millsap, Brock, Springtown, Azle, Cool, or anywhere else in Parker County, there are odds that you may be subject to suffering a loss from flood damage. A natural question would be, “How does flood insurance work?”

Because most property insurance policies covering property at fixed locations exclude flooding, flood insurance must be purchased separately. In 1969, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program to administer the sale of flood insurance. National flood insurance is available directly from the Federal Insurance Administration or through hundreds of private insurers who participate in federal flood insurance programs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reinsures private companies against flood losses.

Flood insurance premiums are calculated based upon geographic maps setting forth the boundaries for various flood zones.

Insurable Interest

October 13, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

What if someone in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Willow Park, Azle, Hudson Oaks, Millsap, Brock, Springtown, Cool, or anywhere else in Parker County has insurance on a house and the house burns down – do they automatically get paid the insurance on the house? The answer is – It depends.

To be able to recover on an insurance policy, the person suffering the loss must have an insurable interest in the property that is insured. The Dallas Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1993, that is still good law. The style of the case is, William T. & Elaine Jones v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Company.

It is a summary judgment case. The Jones sued Texas Pacific on an insurance policy. The summary judgment was granted in favor of Texas Pacific because the court said the Joneses could not recover insurance proceeds on property which they did not have an insurable interest to.

Suing The Insurance Adjuster

October 11, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance Law Attorneys in Grand Prairie, Irving, Duncanville, De Soto, Lancaster, Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, Farmers Branch, or anywhere else in the state of Texas will usually want to sue the adjuster who handled the claim in addition to suing the insurance company when a claim is denied. There are reasons for this. But the insurance company will fight the issue.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Galveston Division, issued an opinion in a case on August 10, 2011, wherein the court allowed the adjuster to be sued over the objections of the insurance company. The style of the case is, Juan Jose Cruz, Lidia Cruz and Griselda Cruz v. Allstate Lloyds and Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. It is property damage claim following Hurricane Ike.

In this Federal Court case, the Cruz’s filed a “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” for the purpose of adding to the lawsuit the individual adjuster who handled the investigation of the claim. Of relevance to the court was that by adding the adjuster the case still remained in Federal Court whereas often times the addition of the adjuster causes the case to be remanded to State Court.

Arson Fires

September 8, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Even in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Euless, Bedford, Hurst, Saginaw, Roanoke, Keller, Grapevine, and other locations in the Metroplex area, arson fires occur. One of the first things an insurance company is always going to do when there is a fire claim is investigate for the possibility of arson. If the insurance company determines a fire is arson, the next thing they will do is see if the insureds’ under the insurance policy are responsible or have a motive to set the fire. Of course by this time, the insured needs to be consulting with an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.

A 1987, case from the Dallas Court of Appeals styled, Texas General Indemnity Company v. Jerry L. Speakman and Donald E. Coffman, is interesting based on the facts in the case. There are a lot of legal procedures in the case, which will not be discussed because they are unusual and hard to follow without a lot of legal knowledge. But briefly on the legal aspects, the trial was to the Judge instead of a jury and the Judge ruled in favor of the insurance company. Coffman and Speakman filed a “motion to correct judgment or for new trial” and a “first amended motion to correct judgment or for a new trial.” Surprisingly the Judge reversed his earlier decision and ruled against the Texas General Indemnity Company. He awarded close to $200,000 to the insureds. This appeals court upheld the trial court decision with some modification to the money.

Here are some of the facts in this case.

Homeowners Policy And Examination Under Oath

September 6, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

People in Grand Prairie, Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Richardson, Garland, Duncanville, De Soto, Irving, Mesquite, and other places in Texas, who have a homeowners insurance policy, probably know they are suppose to pay their premiums. Beyond paying those premiums, most people do not understand what other obligations they have as part of the policy.

One of the obligations most insureds have under a homeowners policy is to submit to an examination under oath (EUO) if requested by the insurance company. A 2005, case out of the Beaumont Court of Appeals discusses this obligation. The style of the case is, In re Foremost County Mutual Insurance Company and Jim Doland. Here is some information on the case.

It is a mandamus proceeding arising out of Foremost’s denial of a fire loss claim. The claim was denied after the insured, Kenneth Whitney, refused to submit to an EUO. Foremost sought an abatement of the lawsuit filed by Whitney until he had complied with the policy requirement of submitting to an EUO. The trial court refused Foremost’s request and the mandamus proceeding resulted.

Rental House Fire

September 3, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lots of people in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Springtown, Millsap, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, Cool, Peaster, Poolville, and other towns in Parker County own rental property. There will be times when that property is vacant. What if a fire occurs when the property is vacant?

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2002, that dealt with the above scenario. The style of the case is, Charles J. Walch v. United Services Automobile Association Property and Casualty Insurance Co. The trial court had granted a summary judgement in favor of United and Walch appealed. There were several issues in this case but the relevant part to this writing, is where the appeals court overruled the trial court as it relates to the question as to whether the property was “vacant” at the time the fire loss occurred.

Here are relevant facts to know. Walch owed a small rental house that was insured by United under a policy of insurance. The tenants of the house moved out on May 15, 1999, and left it in a damaged condition. About ten days later, Walch began renovations. On September 2, 1999, Walch discovered the house had been damaged by fire and in October filed a claim for the fire losses.

What Happens If My Spouse Sets The House On Fire?

September 1, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

It will happen to someone in Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Fort Worth, Arlington, Lake Worth, Benbrook, Crowley, North Richland Hills, or somewhere else in Tarrant County or a surrounding area. A spouse will be upset or depressed or temporarily out of control and while in one of these mindsets, burn the house down on purpose.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1996, in a case where it appears a spouse burned down the house. Of course the insurance company denied the claim based on the policy defense of arson. The style of the case is, Jan Saunders v. Commonwealth Lloyd’s Insurance Company.

This was an appeal from a summary judgment in an insurance bad faith case. Here is some background.

House Fires And Insurance And Arson

August 30, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

A house fire in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Irving, or anywhere else in the North Texas area is a real nightmare for those involved. It is even worse when the insurance company accuses you of arson and denies the claim.

There are many things an experienced Insurance Law Attorney can do to help someone who is accused by the insurance company of having committed arson own their own house in order to recover the insurance proceeds.

One first needs to understand that arson is a criminal offense. The crime of arson is defined in the Texas Penal Code, Section 28.02. According to this section of the Penal Code:

Suspicion Of Arson

August 28, 2011 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arson happens in places like Fort Worth, Dallas, Garland, Irving, Mesquite, Richardson, Plano, Duncanville, De Soto, and all other places in Texas at one time or another. But to be accused of arson and have your insurance claim denied because you are suspected by the insurance company is something else. Is there a typical case or situation where this comes about? The answer is no. Every situation has to be scrutinized based on the facts of that particular situation.

The Texarkana Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a 1990 case that discusses the way these arson cases are evaluated. The style of the case is, The St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company v. Teri Lynn Luker and Paul Kimbel Luker. In the case, a jury found in favor of the Lukers and compensated the Lukers for contractual damages of $27,000 and tort damages of $50,000 and mental anguish of $15,000. The court reversed all but the contractual damages of $27,000.

Here are some of the facts of this case.