Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Credit Life Insurance And Damages

October 2, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Burleson insurance attorneys will see potential new clients come in their office with issues related to “credit life” insurance. This is a type of insurance that pays off a debt in the event of the death of the insured. A 1998, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] opinion gives us something to learn about these types of policies. The style of the case is, Norman v. League City National Bank and Life of America Insurance Company. Here is what the case tell us.

Mr. Norman applied for and obtained two loans from the Bank. In connection with both loans, he applied for and obtained credit life insurance from Life of America Insurance Company. Mr. Norman died before making any payments on either loan. The Bank submitted a claim to Life of America, but the claim was denied. The Bank then filed suit against Life of America for payment under the insurance policies. The Bank also filed suit in probate court against Mr. Norman’s estate and Mrs. Norman for payment of the loans. Mrs. Norman then filed suit against the Bank and Life of America asserting claims under the Texas Insurance Code, the DTPA, and for breach of warranty. All actions by all parties were consolidated in the probate court.

The Bank and Life of America eventually settled their claims without notifying or involving Mrs. Norman. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in part, holding that the claims asserted by Mrs. Norman were without merit as a matter of law, but the court also found Mrs. Norman was a “prevailing party” under the DTPA and was therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. All parties appealed.

Surplus Lines Insurance – Beware

September 30, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

De Soto insurance lawyers who know, will tell you to be aware of surplus lines insurance. These policies often have exclusions to such a degree as to make the insurance meaningless. A 2014, opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals certainly left one insured feeling they had been ripped-off. The style of the case is, Simon v. Tudor Insurance. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an insurance coverage dispute.

In December 2007, Simon d/b/a Sherlock Pest signed and submitted to Hines, an insurance agent, an application for insurance entitled “Termite & Pest Control General Liability Application.” The application stated “WDI excluded.” Simon also signed an accompanying “Absolute WDI Exclusion” that read:

Insurance Prompt Pay Problems With PIP

September 28, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lake Worth insurance lawyers handling Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage may find this Texas Supreme Court case interesting. The opinion was issued in 2001, and the style of the case is, Allstate Insurance Company v. Bonner. Here is some of the relevant information from the case.

Rhonda Bonner was covered by an auto insurance policy issued by Allstate. Bonner was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured motorist. This policy included a non-duplication-of-benefits provision. Bonner reported a claim for medical costs resulting from her injury to Allstate, and received $1,619 in personal injury protection benefits. After receiving this, Bonner filed an uninsured motorist claim, which Allstate received on December 15, 1997. Allstate did not acknowledge receipt of the claim until, January 16, 1998, and eventually rejected the claim.

Bonner filed suit against Allstate seeking payment of uninsured motorist benefits. Bonner also sought attorneys’ fees and costs, relying to the Prompt Payment of Claims statute, which requires insurance companies to acknowledge receipt of claims within 15 days. The jury awarded compensatory damages to Bonner of $1,000 and fees and costs totaling $7,500. The trial judge however, rendered a take-nothing judgment after trial. The court of appeals upheld the take-nothing judgment with respect to compensatory damages, as Bonner had already been compensated under the personal injury benefit, but assessed costs and fees against Allstate. The court of appeals held that an insurance company must comply with the Prompt Payment of Claims Act every time the insured presents a claim. Allstate sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas, asserting that Bonner did not present a claim for which it was liable (because of the no-nduplication of benefits provision). Allstate distinguished this case from earlier cases in which insureds had valid claims above and beyond what they had already been paid by Allstate.

Read The Policy

September 27, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance law lawyers will tell you to read your insurance policy when you get it. The Insurance Journal published a story that illustrates why. The title of the article is, “Indiana Supreme Court Affirms Importance Of Reading Policy.” Here is what the article tells us.

Failure to procure insurance claims of agent malpractice typically involve agent conduct where the agent makes a promise of future activity and not representations about existing provisions related to actual coverages or limits in the issued policy.

In the former situation, the insured has an obligation to read the policy in many jurisdictions, including Indiana, and should be able to discover the procurement error especially when it relates to policy limits set forth in the Declarations page.

Insurance Companies And Signing Documents

September 25, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers will tell you to be careful about what you sign when dealing with an insurance company. A recent case from the Eastern District of Texas re-intereates this point. The style of the case is, Dana O’Quinn v. General Star Indemnity Company. Here is some of the relevant information from that case.

On January 22, 2204, Dana’s husband Brian filed the Articles of Incorporation for Cahoots Entertainment. Dana completed an insurance application from General Star.

A fire occurred on July 4, 2011. A substantial claim was made. On February 15, 2012, Dana signed a Policyholder’s Property Damage Release that stated she accepted the settlement of all claims, but reserved the right to pursue “a supplemental claim for additional damages, if discovered, and to review and revisit the depreciation calculation.” General Star then issued a final payment. On February 6, 2013, Dana filed a supplemental claim for additional damages. A lawsuit was filed by Dana on July 24, asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith. Both sides filed Motions For Summary Judgment.

Water Damage To Home

September 23, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth attorneys who handle water damage claims want to keep up with cases decided by juries through out the state of Texas. A recent case from the Houston Court of Appeals (14th Dist.) is worth reading. The style of the case is, Khan v. Safeco Surplus Lines. Here is some of the relevant information from the case.

In late August 2002, the Khans returned home from a multiple-week family vacation and discovered “[w]ater . . . everywhere in the house” as if there was “no roof on the home.” On August 26, 2002, Khan reported the matter to Safeco. According to Khan, the water in the Property came from a single air conditioning pan leak in the attic.

Safeco assigned the claim to Crawford for adjustment and investigation. Crawford opened a file and appointed an adjustor to handle it. By September 13, Safeco had opened ten claims on the Property. The adjustor contacted a plumbing company to investigate possible leaks and engineer Gary Whightsil to investigate the loss. Whightsil had extensive investigative experience; he had investigated nearly 250 water- and mold-damaged houses prior to examining the Property. Whightsil inspected the Property on September 19. His investigation revealed numerous sources of water intrusion beyond the air conditioning pan leak.

Title Insurance Concerns

September 21, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys who look at Title Insurance issues will find a recent article published by the Los Angeles Times interesting. The article is titled “Lawsuit Puts Scrutiny On Title Insurance Kickbacks.” Here is what it tells us.

A new federal court suit alleging kickback violations by one of the country’s top-producing real estate sales teams raises an unsettling question for home buyers: Could your agent or broker be pocketing under the table large chunks of what you pay for title insurance?

Some legal analysts say the litigation should be a wake-up call for realty brokers and their customers nationwide. It focuses fresh attention on the often murky financial relationships that exist between title insurance agencies and realty firms — relationships that have been drawing increasing scrutiny from the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Texas And Uninsured Drivers

September 20, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance lawyers see lots of uninsured drivers. The Insurance Journal published an article addressing this issue. The title of the article is, “Number Of Uninsured Drivers On Texas Roads Drops.” Here is what the article tells us.

The number of uninsured drivers in Texas has dropped more than 38 percent from a year ago, state statistics show, and officials attribute the decline to a program focused on getting those drivers either insured or off the road and a clean-up of the database of the state’s licensed drivers.

Statistics compiled in June indicate 13 percent of motorists, or about 2.6 million Texans, are driving without minimum insurance coverage, which is a violation of state law. One year ago, the state reported that about 22 percent of all drivers, or 4.2 million people, had no insurance.

Uninsured Motorists Out There

September 18, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas lawyers handling insurance cases can tell you there are a lot of uninsured motorists in the Dallas – Fort Worth area. It is also true across the nation. The Insurance Journal published an article titled, “IRC: Uninsured Motorists A Perplexing Pervasive Concern.” Here is what the article tells us.

A new report shows there hasn’t been much ground gained in the battle to reduce the number of uninsured motorists on the road, and there’s nowhere experts can point their fingers as an explanation of the pervasive problem.

From a percentage point of view, the nation’s uninsured motorist dilemma is easing, but the bad news is that the cost of uninsured motorist claims has risen dramatically in the past decade, according to a report from the Insurance Research Council.

Life Insurance – Authority Of Insurance Company Manager

September 16, 2014 | Mark S. Humphreys

Life insurance attorneys in the Dallas Fort Worth area would want to know about a 1996, San Antonio Court of Appeals case holding an insurance company responsible for the conduct of one of it’s managers. The style of the case is, Mendoza v. American National Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information from the case.

Jerry Mendoza purchased a $25,000.00 life insurance policy from American National on August 1, 1991. The October premium was not paid. The policy provided for a thirty-one day grace period. On November 1, 1991, the last day of the grace period, American National’s district manager, Sitka, verbally agreed to extend the grace period until November 4, 1991. The policy, however, specifically provided that only American National’s president, vice-president or secretary had the authority to extend this time period. Jerry Mendoza died in an automobile accident on November 3, 1991. The premium was never paid. In a prior appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of American National on Mendoza’s breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith claims. The current appeal concerns the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on Mendoza’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Insurance Code, and DTPA violations.

This court held that in order to qualify as a consumer under the DTPA, a person must seek to acquire goods or services by purchase or lease and those goods or services must form the basis of the complaint. Lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant does not preclude a plaintiff from establishing consumer status. Section 541.060 provides standing to “any person” who has been injured by another’s engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance as declared in the Insurance Code or the DTPA.