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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grapevine insurance attorneys need to be able to recognize when fraud or misrepresentation occurs in the insurance context.
To accuse an insurance agent or insurance company of fraud there needs to be proof of the following elements:
1) a material representation was made;
Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be able to look at the facts of a case and determine whether or not the insurance agent can be held liable for his actions.
One thing to keep in mind as was stated in the Corpus Christ Court of Appeals case, In re National Health Insurance Company, is that to recover damages an insured must prove that the conduct complained of was the cause in fact of the actual damages.
An insurance agent may be liable for negligently failing to inform an insured of a policy renewal date. The case that states this is the Texas Supreme Court case, Kitching v. Zamora. In Kitching the Court held that an insurance agent who receives commissions from a customer’s payment of insurance policy premiums has a duty to reasonably attempt to keep the customer informed about his or her insurance policy expiration date when the agent receives information pertaining the expiration date that is intended for the customer.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers when presented with a claim being denied will want to see if the agent who sold the insurance policy did anything wrong.
The case law in Texas is pretty clear in that insurance agents have no general duty to obtain insurance nor to make sure the coverage is adequate for one of their customers. On the other hand, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1992, that found where an insurance agent who undertakes to procure insurance for his customer owes a duty to that customer to use reasonable diligence in attempting to place the requested insurance and to inform the client promptly if unable to do so. This case is styled, May v. United Services Association of America. There is also a case reversing a summary judgment for the agent wherein the customer alleged that the agent failed to raise coverage limits after being asked to do so.
The Texas Supreme Court has held that an agent has a duty to keep the customer informed about the insurance policy’s expiration date when the agent receives information pertaining to the expiration date that is intended for the customer. This case is styled, Kitching v. Zamora. A similar opinion was issued by the Amarillo Court of Appeals in 1992, in the case styled, Horn v. Hedgecoke Insurance Agency.
Dallas insurance attorneys will run across situations wherein it is hard to understand and advise how the law applies based on the facts of the case when applied to the policy language.
The United States District Court, N. D. Oklahoma, issued an opinion in July 2013 that illustrates how complicated it can sometimes be to advise a client. The style of the case is O’Farrell v. State Farm. Here is some relevant information:
O’Farrell and State Farm, both, filed motions for summary judgment. The parties dispute whether Oklahoma or Texas insurance law applies to plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, and they agree that the choice of law issue is dispositive. Plaintiff Patricia O’Farrell, in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Samuel Joseph Dash (the Estate), argues that Oklahoma law applies and an insured’s own vehicle qualifies as an “uninsured motor vehicle” as a matter of law. Defendant contends that Texas law applies and an exclusion in the policy providing that the insured’s vehicle is not an uninsured motor vehicle is enforceable under Texas law.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
