Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Life Insurance Lawyers Know This Already

June 25, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance lawyers in Dallas already know what was published in the Washington Post. It is an article about the death of a loved one being the beginning of a hard fight with the life insurance company.

The article tells us of an experience by a Jane Pierce. Jane spent nine years struggling beside her husband, Todd, as he fought cancer in his sinus cavity. The treatments were working. Then in July 2009, Todd died in a fiery car crash at the age of 46. Todd’s death ended a fight with cancer but began a long fight with Todd’s insurance company, MetLife, for life insurance benefits.

A state medical examiner and a sheriff investigating the case concluded that Todd’s death was an accident. The accident was caused when Todd lost control of his silver GMC pickup after passing a car on a two-lane road. Sounds simple enough, right!?

Policy Cancellation – Late Payment

June 23, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys will have clients come to them wherein the insurance company is denying a claim. The stated reason for denial is that the policy was cancelled due to late payment. The Austin Court of Appeals ruled on this issue in May 2015. The style of the case is, Plasma Fab, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Company.

Plasma Fab, an ornamental iron construction contractor, purchased a general liability policy from Scottsdale in May 2008 and financed payment through premium finance company BankDirect. BankDirect paid all premiums in advance, and Plasma Fab was to make monthly payments to BankDirect. The premium finance agreement gave BankDirect authority to cancel the policy on behalf of Plasma Fab and seek a refund of unearned premiums for nonpayment of premium “after proper notice has been mailed as required by law.” Plasma Fab was chronically late making payments, and twice the policy was cancelled and reinstated. It is the third cancellation that is at issue.

On November 24, 2008, BankDirect prepared a notice of intent to cancel the policy effective December 4, 2008, which was ten days following the date the notice was prepared. However, BankDirect did not mail the notice of intent to cancel to Plasma Fab until the next day, November 25, 2008, so that the stated date of cancellation was only nine days after the date the notice was mailed. On December 4, 2008, after 5:00 p.m., BankDirect mailed a notice of cancellation to Scottsdale effective December 4, 2008.

Arson Suspected?

June 21, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Springtown insurance lawyers who handle fire cases need to read this article. One reason an insurance company uses for denying a claim is the assertion that the insured caused the fire, in other words arson by the insured. The Arizona Republic published an article on May 14, 2015, that brings into question the credibility of some fire reports. The article is titled, Ties Between Phoenix Fire Department, Insurer At Issue In Lawsuit. Here is what it tells us.

A so-called “hand-in-hand” relationship between the Phoenix Fire Department’s arson squad and a private insurance company is expected to come under scrutiny in the retrial of a civil lawsuit against the insurer by a woman wrongfully accused of setting fire to her home.

When the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office dismissed the criminal case against Barbara Sloan because of a lack of evidence, Deputy County Attorney Edward Leiter noted an “incestuous relationship” between the Phoenix Fire Department and Farmers Insurance, the case disposition worksheet says. The Judge agreed, writing that the Fire Department and insurance company seemed to work “hand in hand,” minutes show.

Drone Insurance?

June 20, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance lawyers need to be on the look out for this – drone insurance. I’m kinda curious about it – are you? The Insurance Journal published an article about this issue on May 13, 2014. It is titled, Market For Drone Insurance Expected To Take Off In Nest 5 Years. Here is what it says.

The use of drones could become common practice for almost 40 percent of businesses in fewer than five years, according to corporate risk managers.

Those same risk managers say they will buy drone insurance even if it’s not mandated.

Collecting Uninsured Motorist Coverage

June 18, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Springtown insurance lawyers need to understand how to help a client recover uninsured motorist benefits (UM). In doing so, they would need to be aware of a 2015, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] opinion. The style of the case is, Oliver Vans, Jr. Mickey Dinh, Santos Reyna, and Lo Dinh v. Infinity County Mutual Insurance Company and Sandra Hightower.

Vans, Reyna, and Dinh (appellants) were traveling in a 1996 Camry, owned by Dinh, when it struck another vehicle. All three were injured. Vans took photos of the other vehicles license plant which was id’ed as a 1999 Olds owned by Orozco.

Appellants sued Orozco. Orozco filed a handwritten answer stating that she was neither the driver or owner of the Olds and that she had sold the vehicle to Zamora. She also sent a copy of the Bill of Sale that was signed by her and Zamora. She also sent a letter stating she did not have insurance on the vehicle and that Orozco did not have insurance either. Thus, appellants made a UM claim against Infinity.

How To Get Extra-Contractual Liability

June 16, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Azle insurance lawyers need to be able to recognize when a case might have extra-contractual issues to litigate.

A mere breach of an insurance contract is not actionable under the DTPA or Insurance Code. There must be something more in the way of fraud or misrepresentation in order to establish a cause of action. A breach of contract, even if proven, does not constitute an “unconscionable” act.

A reasonable basis for an insurance company to deny a claim may establish a defense to a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. But this defense to a bad faith suit does not foreclose any other contractual claims, such as violation of the DTPA. violation of the Insurance Code or common law negligence. The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that an insurance company will not be faced with a tort suit for challenging a claim of coverage if there was any reasonable basis for its denial of that coverage.

Notice To An Insurance Company Before Filing A Lawsuit

June 14, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Saginaw insurance lawyers have to know the requirements to filing a lawsuit against an insurance company. The company is entitled to a pre-suit notice and failing to give notice can result in the case being thrown out of court.

Just sending a letter is not good enough. There are requirements to the content of the letter.

As a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit seeking damages for wrongs believed to be committed, the insured must give written notice at least 60 days before filing the lawsuit. The notice must tell the insurance carrier the specific complaint, the amount of actual damages and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in asserting the claim. This requirement is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.154. Keep in mind it is not enough to just say, “hey you owe me $x.” The letter must be clear as to what the insurance company has done that is wrong and clear as to how any dollar figure asserted is calculated.

Is Smell A Loss Under Your Insurance Policy?

June 13, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here’s something for Texas insurance lawyers to have in their bag of knowledge. This comes from the “Claims Journal” and is about an opinion in New Hampshire but is relevant to Texas also.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently held that a persistent odor could constitute a “physical loss” under a homeowner’s insurance policy as long as the smell distinctly and demonstrably changed the condition of the property. The decision represents an important statement about policy interpretation, defining “physical loss” and applying pollution exclusions.

In the case before the court the insureds owned a condo that they rented to various tenants. Shortly after renting the upstairs unit, a tenant moved out complaining of a cat urine odor which had come through an open plumbing chase from the downstairs unit where another tenant owned multiple cats. After the insureds moved into the unit themselves and noticed the odor, a health inspector advised them to move out temporarily while the units were cleaned. Unfortunately, they could not rid the smell. They were unable to find new tenants and ultimately sold the condo at a significant loss.

Loss Of Use In Insurance

June 11, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Benbrook insurance lawyers need to be aware of this case. The reason to be aware of this case is that the case is, as of the date of this post, on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. Hopefully their decision will put to rest some of the arguments in the Courts of Texas dealing with how to handle “loss of use” issues. The style of this case is, American Alternative Insurance v. Davis. It is from the Waco Court of Appeals.

The crux of this case involves whether a chattel owner should be compensated for measurable loss-of-use damages suffered when the owner’s chattel is totally destroyed and the owner is unable to replace the chattel or obtain a substitute immediately. The dispute arises from an automobile accident on December 29, 2011. At the time of the accident, Davis was driving a wrecker owned by his business, J & D. The only issue submitted to the jury pertained to J & D’s damages for the loss of use of its wrecker.

Davis testified that the wrecker in question was a 2002 Dodge 3500 with an 806 Vulcan wheel-lift unit on the rear. Davis stated that this was J & D’s only wrecker. Davis did not replace the wrecker until the second week of March 2012 because he claimed that he was financially unable to purchase a replacement wrecker. Accordingly, J & D was unable to continue operations for a period of approximately four months.

Hire A Texas Insurance Law Lawyer

June 9, 2015 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers will all have tales of people who lost cases they might have otherwise won if only they had hired an experienced Insurance Law Attorney. This is illustrated in a Dallas Court of Appeals case styled, Marqueth Wilson v. Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company. Please understand that even with an attorney Wilson may have lost this case but here they did not even stand a chance.

According to Wilson’s original petition, on June 24, 2012, he was driving on Scyene Road in Dallas when an object fell off of the car traveling in front of him. The object hit his car, causing property damage. He further alleged the impact of “hopping the curb” caused bodily injury to his lower back, neck, shoulders, and legs.

At the time of the incident, his insurance policy included uninsured motorist, underinsured motorist, comprehensive and collision coverage, rental reimbursement, and personal injury protection (“PIP”). Wilson alleged that despite giving Colonial the opportunity to honor his policy, the insurance company refused; therefore, he filed suit for breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and private nuisance.