Interpreting An Insurance Policy

Misrepresentation In Purchase Of Insurance Policy

June 5, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Peaster, Millsap, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, and other places in Parker County would want to read the case decided in July 2011, by the San Antonio Court of Appeals. The case is styled, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Shannan Rogers and Cristen Bazan et al. Here is some background.

In 2008, Cynthia Bazan purchased a house in Kerr County with a mortgage from Regency Solutions, which required her to obtain insurance on the house. Bazan purchased a policy from Farm Bureau. On January 14, 2009, a fire completely destroyed her house and all of its contents. She made a claim and Farm Bureau began a criminal background check of Bazan and the cause of the fire. The fire was determined to be of “undetermined” origin. Bazan, in her interview admitted to a criminal history. However, she had denied the criminal history in her application for insurance. In fact, she had a lengthy criminal history. Farm Bureau made a decision to rescind the policy, thus denying Bazan policy benefits for the fire loss.

The specific policy language relied on by Farm Bureau read:

Automobile Policy Exclusions

May 27, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford Insurance Lawyers and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Millsap, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to be aware of this case.

It is a 1971, opinion issued by the Houston Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Carl Calvin Futrell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company.

This is a suit for medical payment benefits under an automobile insurance policy. Futrell sued Lumbermens for medical expenses incurred by his minor son, who was injured while riding a motorbike when it collided with a motorcycle. Futrell contended that the trial court erred in concluding that a motorcycle is not an automobile within the meaning of that term as it is used in the medical payments coverage of the Texas family combination automobile insurance policy.

Exclusions In Insurance Policies

May 26, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance Lawyers in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Lake Worth, Saginaw, Benbrook, Burleson, and other places in Tarrant County would want to be aware of this older case.

The case was decided in 1967, by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, William A. Cockrum v. Travelers Indemnity Company.

This is an appeal by Cockrum from a take nothing summary judgment in favor of Travelers in a suit to recover medical payments under a family automobile insurance policy.

Interpreting Medical Payments Coverage

May 24, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

For attorneys in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Tarrant County, interpreting insurance policies can be difficult. Even experienced Insurance Law Attorneys will often times disagree on what the wording in a policy means as it relates to the facts of a claim.

Here is a case wherein “medical payments coverage” is being interpreted in order to determine how it is paid under the given facts.

This case is a 1973, case out of the Waco Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Haskell M Dhane et ux. v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.

What Is An Occurrence In An Insurance Policy?

May 22, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys, and those in Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Hudson Park, Willow Park, Millsap, Brock, Cool, and other places in Parker County should be interested in this case.

The style of the case is, Foust v. Ranger Insurance Company. The opinion was issued by the San Antonio Court of Appeals in 1998. Here are some facts:

In 1994, Foust farmed various tracts of land which abutted land owned and farmed by Walters Farms. In May 1994, Walters Farms retained Lindeman to crop dust the milo crop on its property. The herbicide used is dangerous to cotton. Some of the herbicide drifted from the target area on to various tracts of land being farmed by Foust for cotton, causing severe damage to Foust’s cotton crop. Foust sued Lindeman, Walter Farms, and the manufacturer of the herbicide for loss of income suffered as a result of the damaged cotton crop.

Auto Policy Interpretation – Medical Payments Coverage

May 20, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie attorneys and attorneys in Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, Dallas, and anywhere else in Texas would need to have a basic understanding of automobile insurance policies. The following case helps someone to understand how one part of an auto policy is interpreted.

The style of the case is, Wesley Howard Williams v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company. This is a case that was decided in 1963, by the San Antonio Court of Appeals.

This case tells us that “medical payments coverage” is based upon contract and not on the insured’s negligence.

Vacancy Clause In Homeowners Policy

May 3, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

A person in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, and other places in Parker County who has a homeowners policy would find the following case of interest.

At one time or another a house or residence is going to be vacant for a period of time. Maybe it is when remodeling is being done, or if the property is a rental, there may be a vacancy when a tenant moves out. There may be a temporary vacancy when a house is up for sale. There can be many situations where a structure is temporarily vacant. What most people do not realize is that almost all policies have vacancy exclusions written into the policy. The insured customer discovers this only when they are making a claim and the adjuster assigned the claim determines the vacancy exclusion is applicable and denies the claim for benefits.

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued an opinion recently that dealt with the vacancy clause exclusion in a homeowners policy. The style of the case is, Columbia Lloyds Insurance Company v. Robert Mao and Vachana Mao.

Life Insurance And Paperwork

April 21, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Arlington, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Texas need to be able to read and understand the papers related to life insurance policies. The following case is a good example of this.

The case was decided in 2004, and was an opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Royal MacCabees Life Insurance Company v. Vicki James and The City of Mesquite. Here are some of the facts.

Donnie James was a police officer for the City of Mesquite who died on June 5, 1998. This dispute arises out of a group life insurance policy issued by Royal for City of Mesquite employees. Under the policy, an eligible employee could elect coverage in incremental amounts up to $100,000. It is contended that Donnie James was eligible for, elected, and paid premiums for $100,000 in benefits. There is no dispute as to the first $50,000 in benefits. Royal paid $50,000 after James death. The lawsuit arose out of Royal’s denial of the additional $50,000 in benefits for which Donnie James had paid premiums (through payroll deductions) for four years and ten months prior to his death.

Conditions In A Life Insurance Policy And Lawyers

April 19, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insureds in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Saginaw, Southlake, Roanoke, Keller, North Richland Hills, and other places in Tarrant County need to understand what their life insurance policy says.

The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2008, that is on point. The style of the case is, Quihong Liu v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company.

Here is some of the factual and procedural background.

Life Insurance Policy And Lawyer

April 17, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

It is hard for someone in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Willow Park, or any where else in Parker County to understand a life insurance policy. Here is a case that shows how some are interpreted.

The style of the case is Assurity Life Insurance Company v. Varsha Grogan, et al. This is a case decided by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007. It is an appeal from the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Grogan entitling her to proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy. Assurity argued that, under Texas law, the policy issued to Mr. Grogan never took effect because it contained a “good health” condition precedent to its effectiveness; and that Mr. Grogan was not in good health on the date relevant to the policy’s effectiveness.

On April 4, 2002, Mr. Grogan submitted to Assurity an application for $1,000,000 of whole life insurance on his own life. This application did not progress and was later closed. On August 8, 2002, Mr. Grogan sent Assurity a letter reaffirming his desire to apply for the policy.