Articles Posted in Interpreting An Insurance Policy

What about a school district located in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or somewhere else in Texas? Does that make a difference when deciding how to interpret an insurance policy? The answer is no, but here is a case involving a commercial policy purchased by a school district contractor.

The United States District Court, Northern District, Dallas Division, recently had to decide whether a commercial policy purchased by contractors of the Quinlan Independent School District (QUID) were liable in a claim made by the QISD against one of its contractors. The style of the case is Employers Mutual Casualty Company et al. v. Northern Insurance Company. This case was decided on March 11, 2010, by Senior District Judge, A. Joe Fish.

Dates are relevant in this case. In April 1998, QISD hired DalMac Construction Company (DalMac) to be the general contractor in charge of constructing Ford High School. DalMac hired C. Watts as its “dirt work” subcontractor on the project. QISD took possession of the school in August 1999. Beginning immediately and continuing over the next several years, QISD experienced problems with the building and eventually brought suit against DalMac. In turn, DalMac brought suit against various subcontractors, including C. Watts. C. Watts tendered the defense of the lawsuit to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (Employers). Employers policies went into effect on November 1, 1999. Employers agreed to defend C. Watts in the lawsuit but did so under a reservation of rights. Employers conceded they may have some liability in the lawsuit but that Northern Insurance Company (Northern), which had a policy in effect from November 1, 1998, to November 1, 1999, also had liability under their policy.

Most businesses in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford, are going to have insurance policies to cover losses. In addition to the regular liability policy they will also have an “umbrella” policy. An umbrella policy is an insurance policy that covers amounts above those covered under one or more other primary policies, and which does not pay until the losses exceed a certain sum. It is sometimes also called an excess insurance policy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ruled on a case on March 25, 2010, that dealt with an umbrella policy. The style of the case is, Delta Seaboard Well Serv’s Inc. v. American Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.

Delta Seaboard Well Serv’s, Inc. (Delta) is an oil and gas well serving company that plugs non-productive wells for operating companies. In 2003, Delta contracted with Fort Apache Energy, Inc. to plug a well. Sometime after plugging the well Fort Apache discovered that the gas pressure at the wellhead had not “bled off”, a fact finding that would have required Delta to cease its plugging operation. Fort Apache sued Delta for negligently plugging the hole when there was still recoverable reserves in the hole.

What if you are a business owner in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Weatherford, Fort Worth, Dallas, or somewhere else in Texas, and your business is shut down for a while? How does your commercial policy help you with lost income?

This was the question in the case, Catlin Syndicate Limited v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, Inc; Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC. This case was decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The date of its decision is March 15, 2010.

Catlin Syndicate Limited (Catlin) is an insurer. They insured the casino operator Imperial Palace of Mississippi (Imperial). As the result of damage caused by hurricane Katrina, Imperial suffered a business interruption. Imperial was shut down for several months. When Imperial reopened it made much greater revenue than before the hurricane because many of the nearby casinos remained closed, and people had fewer gambling choices. Catlin agreed to pay Imperial’s claim but there was a dispute as to how the business interruption loss should be calculated.

How an insurance policy is interpreted by Texas Courts is important. This is true whether you live in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Weatherford, Fort Worth, Mansfield, Dallas, or anywhere else in Texas.

A commercial insurance policy was recently interpreted by the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The style of this case is National Casualty Insurance Company v. Orion Transport, Inc. and Silvia Brune, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of James Brune, Deceased and Cody Brune and Cory Brune. The case was decided on February 22, 2010.

The undisputed facts in this case are that on February 4, 2009, Orion Transport, Inc. (Orion) hired welder, James Brune, to perform maintenance on its 1977 Heil Tanker Trailer. While Brune was performing the requested maintenance the trailer exploded injuring Brune, who later died of his injuries. The Brune estate and his survivors sued Orion and ETOCO. L.P., and ETOCO Management, LLC. in State District Court. National Casualty Insurance Company (National) brought this instant case in Federal District Court asking the court to rule that National had no duty or obligation under its policy of insurance with Orion to defend Orion or to pay any claims against Orion.

The first thing a person wants to know who has insurance is; Does my policy protect me? This is true no matter if you are living in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, Dallas, or out in Weatherford, Texas.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Corpus Christi Division, had that decision to make in a case styled, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, et, al. v. Radiology Associates, LLP, et al., and issued an opinion on March 3, 2010. In this case, a couple sued Radiology Associates, LLP. (Radiology) and one of their employees, Brian K. Riley. Radiology had three insurance companies providing policies for them and Radiology presented the lawsuit to all three companies to provide a legal defense and settle any potential claims.

The facts in the case were that, Mrs. Pecore, a patient of Radiology, was to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound. It was alleged that during this exam, Riley inserted a finger into Mrs. Pecore’s vagina without permission and that Radiology should have informed Mrs. Pecore she had a right to have a chaparone present during the exam and that if a chaparone had been present the “assault” to Mrs. Pecore would not have occurred. There was nothing about the precedure involving the trans-vaginal exam that would have called for Riley to have committed the act he is accused of commiting.