Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Physical Contact Requirement

November 2, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Tarrant County insurance lawyers should understand the “physical contact” requirement in an auto insurance policy that provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.

This requirement was the issue in the 1995, Texas Supreme Court case, Republic Insurance Company v. Stoker. Here is some of the relevant information.

This is a summary judgment case granted against Republic. The case arises out of a multiple car accident in which the Stokers’ automobile struck the rear end of another vehicle. It is undisputed that an unidentified pickup truck dropped a load of furniture on the highway, causing a chain reaction collision. Also, it is undisputed that this truck was not struck by any of the vehicles involved in the collision. The Stokers had no collision insurance and, therefore, submitted a claim to recover under their uninsured/underinsured vehicle coverage with Republic.

What Is A Motor Vehicle

October 31, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance attorneys will be called on by potential clients to discuss how an insurance policy is interpreted. Especially so when a claim is denied.

As it relates to the use of the term “motor vehicle” in an insurance policy, the 1985, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Western Insurance Companies v. Andrus is good to look at for guidance. Here is some background information.

Here, Western Insurance is appealing from a judgment in favor of Andrus and complains of the trial court failure to grant it’s motion for judgment non obstante.

What Does It Mean To Be Occupying A Vehicle

October 29, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance attorneys need to know the various ways courts look at what it means to be “occupying” a vehicle when making a claim for benefits by way of an auto insurance policy.

One of those ways is discussed in the 1972, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Hart v. Traders & General Insurance Company.

Here is some relevant information about this case.

Written Consent To Settle

October 27, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys have to understand one important provision in most auto insurance policies that provide uninsured and underinsured (UM) protection.

That important provision is the requirement that the insured party obtain written permission from the UM provider before the insured party settles with a responsible third party. This requirement to obtain written permission was upheld in the 1993, Houston Court of Appeals [1 Dist.] case, United States Fire Insurance Company v. Millard.

This case is a writ of mandamus.

Loss Of Consortium

October 26, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Mineral Wells insurance lawyers need to know how a “loss of consortium” claim works as it regards insurance.

The 1987 Texas Supreme Court opinion styled McGovern v. Williams helps a person to understand how this type of claim. Here is some relevant information.

This cause concerns the liability of an insurance company under an automobile liability policy. Robert McGovern and wife, Ella Jo, sued respondent Linda Kay Williams for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Mr. McGovern sued for personal injuries and Mrs. McGovern, who was not involved in the accident, sued for loss of consortium. Respondent State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer for Ms. Williams, intervened and tendered $10,000 as full payment of its policy limits. The trial court determined that $10,000 was the applicable policy limit and, after accepting the tender, released and discharged State Farm from any further liability. Ms. Williams’ insurance policy with State Farm insured Ms. Williams to the extent of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence for bodily injury claims. State Farm tendered $10,000 pursuant to the “per person” policy limit. Mrs. McGovern disputed the amount of the tender, contending that she and Mr. McGovern were each entitled to $10,000 in insurance proceeds and that State Farm’s obligation was $20,000. The trial court held State Farm was not obligated to pay the damages sustained by Mr. and Mrs. McGovern in excess of the $10,000 limit. The trial court accordingly accepted State Farm’s tender of $10,000 and released State Farm from any further liability. The trial court also rendered judgment against Ms. Williams in favor of Mrs. McGovern for $10,000.

What Is An Accident?

October 24, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth lawyers need to be able to answer the above question properly when dealing with a coverage issue in an insurance policy.

Here is what the Texas Supreme Court said in a 1999 case. The style of the case is, MidCentury Insurance Company of Texas v. Lindsey.

Here is some relevant information.

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.