Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Auto Policy Coverage

October 22, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys need to know how Texas courts interpret insurance policies. The 1971, case of Futrell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. is an example of this. The opinion was issued by the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.].

This is a lawsuit for medical payment benefits under an automobile insurance policy. The insured sued the insurer for medical expenses incurred by his minor son, who was injured while riding a motorbike when it collided with a motorcycle. Futrell contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a motorcycle is not an automobile within the meaning of that term as it is used in the medical payments coverage of the Texas family combination automobile insurance policy .

The parties filed this stipulation as to the facts of the case:

Auto Policy Liability Limits

October 20, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County lawyers need to know how the liability limits in an auto policy work. The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1989, that explains this pretty well. The style of the case is, Manriquez v. MidCentury Insurance Company. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment emanating from a wrongful death suit. This appeals court affirmed the decision.

Appellants are the widow and surviving parents of a pedestrian killed when struck by an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor, Gregory Daniel Alkofer. In addition to suing Gregory for negligent driving, his mother, Barbara, was sued for negligent entrustment; and both were charged with gross negligence.

Auto Liability Limits

October 19, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Tarrant County insurance lawyers need to understand how the limits in an auto liability policy work.

A good case that explains how auto liability limits work is American States Insurance Company of Texas v. Arnold. This is a 1996 Dallas Court of Appeals case. The facts are a little confusing but here goes:

Eoline Smith Arnold was involved in a two-car collision while driving an automobile owned by Bessie M. Mayes and in which Mayes was a passenger. Mayes’s vehicle struck another vehicle driven by Michael Rhodes and in which Michael Cassady was a passenger. Both Cassady and Rhodes were injured. Mayes was killed in the accident.

Misrepresentations In Insurance

October 17, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys know that misrepresentations in insurance are essentially the same as misrepresentations in any other area of law.

The Texas Supreme Court told us in 1990, that a false representation must involve an existing or past material fact, rather than a statement of opinion, judgment, probability, or expectation in order to constitute actionable fraud. This is from the case styled, DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.

The Tyler Court of Appeals in 1978, said that statements concerning future contingent events, sales talk, “puffing,” and other similar statements are not considered actionable misrepresentations. The Tyler case is styled, Hicks v. Wright.

Forced Placed Policies

October 15, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys who deal with homeowners claims are usually going to have some familiarity with forced-placed insurance policies.

Most people will not ever have to deal with forced placed policies, but if you do, it can be a nightmare.

Forced place insurance is an insurance policy taken out by a lender or creditor when a customer does not carry insurance on an asset. The charges for this insurance are passed on to the customer.

Pain & Suffering?

October 13, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys need to read this Corpus Christi Court of Appeals opinion regarding pain and suffering in an injury case. The opinion was issued in September of 2013, in the case styled Schaffer v. Nationwide. This was a claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

Here is some relevant background information.

Schaffer’s underinsured benefits claims against Nationwide were tried to a jury. The issue at trial was whether Lovins’s negligence was the cause of the accident and whether and what damages Schaffer suffered as a result of the accident. After the close of evidence, the jury was questioned as to whose negligence caused the accident. The jury answered that both Lovins’s and Schaffer’s negligence were proximate causes of the accident. The jury then apportioned responsibility for the accident, finding that Lovins was seventy-five percent responsible and Schaffer was twenty-five percent responsible. Finally, the jury was questioned as to damages. The jury awarded zero damages for past and future physical pain, past and future earning capacity, past and future physical impairment, and future medical expenses. The jury awarded Schaffer $257,131.41 for past medical expenses. Schaffer filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury’s zero-damages awards for physical pain, earning capacity, and physical impairment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial.

Evidence Of Claim Value

October 12, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers have to be able to prove, with evidence, the value of claims presented.

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion that dealt with evidence in a claim in September of 2013. The style of the case is, Hennen v. Allstate.

The case is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Allstate. Here is some of the analysis made by the Court in upholding the judgment in favor of Allstate.

Insurance Law Attorney

October 10, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of the Dallas Fort Worth area and everywhere need to make sure they hire an experienced Insurance Law Attorney when they are dealing with a dispute involving an insurance company.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case styled, Clark and Nancy Sadler v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies. Here is some of the relevant information.

Clark and Nancy Sadler appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies (“Farm Bureau”) on the Sadlers’ Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) claim.

Different Policy? Same Coverages?

October 8, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas area insurance attorneys need to be aware of the opinion issued by the Houston Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, in August of 2013. The style of this case is Houstoun, et al v. Escalante’s Comida Fina, Inc.

Here is some background information.

Between 2003 and 2008, Escalante’s owned and operated four restaurants in the Houston area. Between 2003 and 2006 the property and casualty insurance policy on the restaurants was through Ohio Casualty Group, which provided coverage, with certain exceptions, in the event of loss of business income caused by an off-premises power or utilities outage. After Hurricane Rita hit Houston in 2005, Escalante’s claimed against the policy and Ohio Casualty paid.

Insured’s Fixing Problems

October 6, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Texas insurance attorneys will find this news from the Texas Supreme Court helpful in advising clients how to proceed in situations where a condition exists and can get worse over time.

The news is from The Southeast Texas Record and the title of the article is, “Texas SC: Insurer Must Pay Homebuilder For Costs Of Voluntary Remediation.”

Here is what the article tells us.