Bad Faith Insurance Attorneys need to read this 2022, opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals. The case is styled, Texas Fair Plan Association v. Adil Ahmed.
The Blog from October 8, 2022, sets forth the law related to this Texas Prompt Payment of Claims fight. The facts and procedural history of the case can be obtained from the opinion.
This is an appeal from summary judgment.
The Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act is at issue in this 2022, opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals. The opinion is styled, Texas Fair Plan Association v. Adil Ahmed.
The facts and history of the case can be gleamed from reading the opinion.
This Courts’ stating of the law regarding the Texas Prompt Pay statute is what is relevant to this posting.
Here’s is another situation that a Life Insurance Claim Attorney will learn quickly. It deals with life insurance beneficiaries and divorces.
This is a 1987 opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals. It is styled, Novotny v. Wittner. It stands for the proposition that a pre-divorce designation of a former spouse is invalidated upon divorce unless the spouse is re-designated after the divorce. This opinion is now codified in Texas Family Code, Section 9.301.
This is an appeal from the award of insurance proceeds to the successor guardian of the decedent’s children. The dispute over the ownership of the proceeds of the life insurance policy is between the decedent’s former wife, who was the named beneficiary on the policy, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, and the successor guardian of the decedent’s two children. The decedent and Appellant were divorced twenty-one days before the decedent’s death. Although the divorce decree awarded all insurance on decedent’s life to him as his sole and separate property, and divested Appellant of all interest in the policies, he had not yet changed the beneficiary designation on one policy. The trial court found that the divorce decree terminated Appellant’s beneficial interest in the policy and awarded the proceeds to the decedent’s children. The Court agreed.
Life Insurance Attorney will quickly learn about Texas Family Code, Section 9.301. This sections says that a spouse named as a beneficiary in a life insurance policy is automatically excluded upon divorce.
One of the first cases that discusses this issue is a 1981, Eastland Court of Appeals opinion. It is styled, Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Koch. The opinion focuses on wording of the policy. Be aware of exceptions to the general rule.
This is a declaratory judgment case. Pilot Life Insurance Company 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.
Here is a 1980, Texas Supreme Court opinion wherein the Court found no bad faith and in fact found in favor of the insurance company. The opinion is styled, Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest v. Overstreet.
This was an unusual case in that the dispute was over whether or not a premium had been timely paid.
Maxie Overstreet, the insured, died on April 24, 1974, at which time he had not paid the 1974 annual premium on the policy. Life Insurance Company (LIC) says that by the date of death, the policy had lapsed because the premium had fallen due on March 15, 1974, the thirty-one-day grace period had expired on April 15, and the insured’s death on April 24 had occurred nine days after the grace period’s termination. Jacquei Overstreet says that the premium payment date was April 18 rather than March 15, that non-payment of the annual premium on April 18 did not end the policy until thirty-one more days, and that Overstreet’s death on April 24 was well within the grace period.
Life insurance lawyers need to read this 2022, opinion from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. The opinion is styled, Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Lincoln Factoring.
Many times where a person buys an insurance policy, where they die, where a beneficiary resides, or what the contract says may play a part in determining under which State law applies to disputes over the life insurance policy.
In this case, the question dealt with whether Texas law applied to the case or whether Louisiana law applied to the case. The facts of the case can be gleamed from reading the opinion. Here is a brief way the Court looked at the case and what life insurance lawyers need to know about when filing a lawsuit.
What insurance attorney hasn’t had someone call after the statute of limitations has already run on the case?
The Dallas Court of Appeals issued an opinion in July 2022, that deals with statute of limitations issues. The opinion is styled, Knox Mediterranean Foods, Inc., v. Amtrust Financial Services.
Knox has incurred a burglary loss on June 16, 2016, and submitted a loss claim to its insurance company, Amtrust. Amtrust paid part of the claim March 15, 2017, along with a letter requesting further information. On June 13, 2017, Amtrust sent a follow up letter that stated in relevant part that due to the requested information not being provided that Amtrust was closing the file. The current lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2020. This summary judgment motion was filed by Amtrust asserting the statute of limitations defense. The judgment was granted.
Life Insurance claims are usually the type of claims that involve an interpleader action. Here is a 2022, opinion from the El Paso Court of Appeals that involves an interpleader, however, the interpleader is related to the proceeds of an auto liability policy that involved a death. Irregardless of the reason for the interpleader, this opinion points out some of the proper procedural aspects related to an interpleader case.
The style of the case is, Theresa Ruebbling, Individually and As Heir Of Victoria Rangel, Deceased v. Foremost County Mutual Insurance Company.
This case stems from a February 19, 2021 automobile accident that killed Victoria Rangel. Foremost insured the vehicle Rangel was a passenger in at the time of the crash. It agreed to pay Rangel’s heirs, her parents Theresa Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel, the $100,000 policy limit for bodily injury liability. Foremost filed an interpleader petition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 43 alleging a dispute between Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel regarding the division of the insurance proceeds had caused it “reasonable doubt about how to disburse the settlement proceeds.” Ruebbling and Jorge Rangel were both named defendants.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
