Life Insurance

Life insurance Reinstatement

November 28, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to read this opinion just issued from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The style of the case is, Cardenas v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company.

This case arises from United of Omaha Life Insurance Company’s denial of Cardenas’s claim for benefits from a life insurance policy taken out by Cardenas’s daughter, Elvia Sierra. The policy lapsed and was subsequently reinstated; Sierra died thirteen months after the reinstatement. As required by the Texas Insurance Code, the policy contained a provision that it would become incontestable if it remained in force “for two years from its date of issue during the lifetime of the insured.” Although the policy does not have a provision dealing with contestability following reinstatement, the parties agree there is such a period. They differ over how the death of the insured during the contestability period will affect the reinstatement. The district court found that the reinstated policy never became incontestable because Sierra died before the two-year period ran. Cardenas argues that a section of the Texas Administrative Code controls and requires finding that the reinstated policy became incontestable.

United of Omaha Life issued a life insurance policy to Cardenas’s daughter, Elvia Sierra, on March 26, 2001. The policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums in June 2005.

Life Insurance Denial

July 14, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys will want to ready this Dallas case. The case is styled, Bich Ngoc Nguyen v. Allstate Insurance Company and Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance Company. The opinion is from the Dallas Court of Appeals and was issued on May 29, 2013.

Here is some relevant information from this summary judgement case:

On May 12, 2008, Bich’s mother, Anh Nguyen (Ahn), contacted Suong Truong, an insurance agent, about purchasing life insurance. Anh did not speak, read, or write English and discussed the purchase with Truong in Vietnamese. Truong completed the application for life insurance in English, and Anh signed the application. In the application, Anh answered “no” to questions about any existing health conditions, including whether, in the past ten years, she had been treated for, had any sign or symptom of, or been told that she had a lung disorder. She also denied that she had seen a doctor or been hospitalized during the five years preceding the application. Truong submitted the application for life insurance to Lincoln.

Life Insurance – Who Gets The Money?

June 13, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys will understand why people need an attorney’s help in these disputes after reading this case. The case is styled, Cheryl M. Patterson and Aundrell Patterson v. American General Life Insurance Company. The opinion was issued in May 2013, by the Houston Court of Appeals, 1st Dist.

Here is the relevant information.

The operative facts of this case are largely undisputed. On May 3, 2007, American General issued a life insurance policy for Lonnie J. Patterson, Jr. The policy initially named Lonnie, Jr.’s father, Lonnie J. Patterson, Sr., the primary beneficiary and his mother, Cheryl M. Patterson, the contingent beneficiary. American General subsequently received a change of beneficiary for the policy, naming Lonnie, Jr.’s mother, Cheryl, and, his sister, Aundrell Patterson, as primary co-beneficiaries. American General acknowledged and confirmed this change in a November 2007 letter to Lonnie, Jr.

Life Insurance Lawyer And Incontestability Clause

May 21, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to know about the incontestability clause in life insurance contracts.

What most people don’t know is that life insurance policies must contain an incontestability clause. This is a paragraph that says the policy will be incontestable after it has been in force during the lifetime of the insured for two years from its date, except for nonpayment of premiums. This is found in a few places in the Texas Insurance Code. Sections 1131.104, and 705.101 through 705.105. The effect of these clauses is to limit the various defenses that insurance companies will write into their policies so that they apply only during the first and second years of the policy. Insurance is a risk and without these laws regulating the policies, the insurance companies would write the policies in such a manner as to take out all the risk for them and leave their customer with only the illusion of insurance coverage.

The purpose of the incontestability clause in protecting the insured is further discussed in the 1972, Texas Supreme Court case, Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Morse.

Life Insurance Attorney – Suicide

May 19, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to read and know this 1986, Amarillo Court of Appeals case. It is styled, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co v. Dettle. Here is some relevant information:

Southern Farm is appealing from a trial court finding in favor or Dettle. The controversy arose from the Southern Farm’s failure to pay death benefits on a policy insuring the life of Douglas Dee Dettle. The deceased-insured was found dead in his apartment. He died as the result of a single shotgun wound to his lower abdomen and genital area. Southern Farm defended on a suicide exclusion in the policy. In response to special issues, the jury determined that the deceased’s death was not a suicide.

Southern Farm argued “the trial court’s definition of the term ‘suicide’ erroneously included the element of intent, thereby placing upon Southern Farm a greater burden of proof than that required under either its contractual language or Texas law.”

Life Insurance & Separation

May 16, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance lawyers need to be aware of this 1981, Eastland Court of Appeals case. The style is Pilot Life Insurance Company v. Koch. Here is some of the relevant information:

This is a declaratory judgment case. Pilot Life sought a judgment declaring that it had no duty to pay life insurance proceeds to Lawrence A. Koch because of the death of his wife. Pilot Life had issued a policy of group insurance to Koch’s employer. The policy afforded life insurance coverage for employees and their eligible dependents. Eligible dependents were defined to include “your husband or wife, unless you were legally separated or divorced.” Pilot Life alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were legally separated on the date of her death. A jury found that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated at the time of her death. Although that separation was pursuant to a “temporary” court order entered in the pending divorce proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Koch, the trial court entered judgment for Koch notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that under Texas law there is no status of legal separation of a husband and wife before the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

On appeal Pilot Life contended that the trial court erred because the evidence established that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated pursuant to an order of a district court and thus they were legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death; and, were, therefore, legally separated within the contemplation of the policy. Pilot Life also urged that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were not legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death.

Life Insurance Beneficiary

May 14, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington life insurance attorneys need to have this 1967, Texas Supreme Court case, at hand in case the need for it arises. The style of the case is, McFarland v. Franklin Life Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

In 1950, Franklin Life issued a policy of insurance on the life of John V. McFarland, who was about nine years of age at the time. The policy was taken out by his parents, Bernard and Gwendolyn McFarland. Bernard was named in the policy as primary beneficiary, and Gwendolyn was designated as contingent beneficiary. John married in 1962 and died the following year. His father predeceased him; he was survived by his widow and Gwendolyn. McFarland brought this suit against Franklin Life to recover the amount due on the policy plus the statutory penalty and attorney’s fees. Franklin Life interpleaded Mrs. John V. McFarland, admitted liability for the proceeds of the policy, and paid the funds into court. The trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded McFarland the money so deposited but allowed no penalty or attorney’s fee, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The only question brought forward on appeal was whether McFarland is entitled to recover such penalty, attorney’s fee and court costs.

It is generally held that ‘where the insurer admits liability, but has reasonable grounds for anticipating rival claims, and in good faith declines to pay the named beneficiary, and deposits the money in court to be paid to the rightful person as determined by the court, it is not liable for more than the face amount of the policy.’

Life Insurance Claim – When Does Coverage Begin

May 11, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to understand the 1980, Texas Supreme Court case, Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest v. Overstreet. Here is some relevant background information.

In February, 1972, Overstreet submitted his application to Southwest to convert a five-year term life policy to a life insurance policy with endowment at age ninety. The earlier policy provided that it would lapse on March 15, 1972. To effect the conversion of the term policy to the policy at issue, Overstreet, on March 6, 1972, delivered his premium check to insurer. It was returned because of insufficient funds. Overstreet then wrote a second check which was also returned for insufficient funds. His third check cleared the bank on April 18, 1972.

The insurer treated March 15 as the date annual premiums were due and sent notices to Overstreet on that basis. On March 6, 1973, insurer sent a notice to Overstreet advising him that his annual premium was due on March 15. After he failed to make his payment on that date, the insurer, on April 5, sent him another notice advising that the grace period for late payment would expire April 15. Overstreet still made no payment. The insurer, on April 15, sent him a further notice advising that the premium was past due and that the policy had been terminated. The notice offered, however, to reinstate the policy if Overstreet paid the premium within ten days. On April 25, the last day of the ten-day period, Overstreet paid the premium, which was for the 1973 insurance year. That premium payment was the last that Overstreet ever made. He did not pay his 1974 premium, and he died on April 24 of that year.

Life Insurance Policy Limitations That Are Illegal

May 9, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to know about these sections of the Texas Insurance Code that prohibit certain limitations in a life insurance policy.

Here’s the first one to know:

Texas Insurance Code, Section 1101.053. This sections says that “A life insurance policy may not include a provision that limits the time during which an action under the policy may be commenced to a period of less than two years after the cause of action accrues.”

Life Insurance Company Pays Wrong Person

May 5, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas Life Insurance lawyers need to know this case.

The case is styled Wilke v. Finn et al. It is a 1931, that was approved by the Texas Court of Appeals. Here is some relevant information.

The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, on December 31, 1923, issued to Herman Finn a policy of life insurance in the sum of $1,500, in which Fred Wilke was named the beneficiary.