Dallas insurance attorneys should know examples of the ways insurance companies commit bad faith insurance code violations with their insured customers.

Most of these violations can be found in Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. The Texas Department of Insurance is a place to go to file a complaint when the insurance company commits an unlawful act. But for the consumer who really wants something done about a wrong an insurance company commits, it is necessary to seek the assistance of an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.

Here are some examples of unfair settlement practices found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060:

Texas insurance lawyers who keep up with the new laws being proposed and passed by the State Legislature need to know some of this information.

Here is some news from the end of the 83rd Legislative Session.

Lobbyists for the insurance industry filed a bunch of anti-policy bills that were designed to make it harder to file a claim and be paid what you are owed. The consumer group, Texas Watch, commissioned a statewide public opinion survey to show lawmakers that Texans were not interested in enacting additional protections for insurance companies. The results of the survey were clear. Texas voters indicated they believe that insurance companies should be required to fulfill their obligations to claimants, and, if they don’t, they should fact stiff penalties in court. This survey and its’ results helped lay the groundwork for the defeat of a host of pro-insurance industry proposals.

Insurance attorneys in Fort Worth and the Dallas area will have clients calling at one time or another asking about appraisals.

Many property insurance policies contain appraisal clauses. These clauses define a process for appraising the value of the damaged property, if the parties cannot agree. Common provisions call for each party to chose an appraiser. Those appraisers then choose a neutral third appraiser, called the umpire. If the parties and their appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, either party may petition a court to appoint one. Once the appraisers and umpire are chosen, they value the loss. If all do not agree on the value, the decision of any two will control. The intent is to give the insurance company and the insured a simple, speedy, and fair means of deciding disputed values.

When the two appraisers do not agree, the umpire doe not simply choose between them. It is the duty of the umpire to to ascertain and determine, in the exercise of his own judgment and as the result of his own investigation, the values of the disputed items.

A Weatherford attorney who handles insurance claims needs to have an awareness of the potential recovery on a breach of insurance contract claim. Here is a little food for thought in that regard.

The 1988, Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., case discusses this. The Texas Supreme Court issued the opinion and the case regards lots of issues and discussion regarding insurance law. Part of that law deals with damages for breach of the insurance contract. The Court said that policy benefits are the basic recovery allowed for an insurance company breach of its contractual obligations under the insurance contract. An insurance company’s refusal to pay the insured’s claim causes damages in at least the amount of the policy benefits wrongfully withheld. Some would call this “benefit of the bargain” damages.

In addition, the insured should be able to recover consequential damages that are the foreseeable result of the insurance company breach of the insurance contract. The argument to be anticipated with this rule is being able to explain what and why a consequential damage is actually a consequential damage and not a damage they may have occurred anyway. But as far as consequential damages are concerned, numerous cases hold that insurance contracts are subject to the same rules as other contracts. This is backed up in Texas case law and made clear in the 1994, Texas Supreme Court case, Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds.

Weatherford and Mineral Wells attorneys need to have some understanding of insurance law. In insurance contracts there are usually what is called intended or third party beneficiaries. Here is a little information about these third party beneficiaries.

Other persons who may sue for benefits under a contract of insurance besides the named insured are “intended beneficiaries,” also known as “third party beneficiaries.”

A third person for whose benefit a contract is made may enforce the contract against the promissor. Texas case law, as stated in 1985, by the Houston Court of Appeals, 14th Dist., tells us the controlling factor in determining whether a third party may enforce a contract is the intention of the contracting parties.

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers will deal with auto policies from time to time and when doing so will also deal with the portion of the policy dealing with Personal Injury Protection (PIP). The Beaumont Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2000, dealing with how PIP benefits are paid. The style of the case is, Texas Farmers Insurance Company v. Carabell Fruge. Here are some of the relevant information on the case.

This case raises questions related to PIP provided in an automobile liability insurance policy as required by Texas Insurance Code, Section 1952.151 through 1952.161. The underlying issue in this case is whether or not an insurance company breached its contract by placing the names of medical providers and Medicare as co-payees on checks paying PIP benefits to Carabell Fruge. The Court held that the company did breach its contract but that it was entitled to name Medicare as a co-payee to part of the PIP benefits.

Jackie Ryan had purchased an automobile liability insurance policy from Texas Farmers Insurance Company that provided her with $2,500 in PIP coverage. Fruge was a passenger in Ryan’s vehicle and was injured in a car wreck. After her injury, Fruge’s attorney filed on her behalf a PIP claim with Farmers supported by documents reflecting medical expenses of $3,490. Some of the supporting documents contained some reference to Medicare. At least one document was stamped “Benefits Assigned.” Farmers responded to Fruge’s claim by mailing her six checks totaling $2,500.30. Four of the checks, totaling $1,854.30, named medical providers, Medicare, or both as co-payees with Fruge. All six checks named the law firm representing Fruge as a co-payee. Fruge’s attorney returned all six checks with a letter advising Farmers that “some or all” of the medical bills related to the checks naming co-payees had been paid, complaining that it would take six months to get all of the necessary endorsements, and demanding payment naming Fruge as the sole payee.

Most insurance law attorney will keep up with the news related to the insurance field. The Dallas Morning News ran an article recently that is good news for consumers of insurance products. The title of the article is “Texas Senate Forcing Out State Insurance Commissioner.” The author is Terrence Shultz. He keeps up with these issues in Austin and gets good information. Here is what the article tells us:

Texas Insurance Commissioner Eleanor Kitzman will apparently have to step down as the state’s top insurance regulator because she cannot garner the necessary Senate votes for confirmation.

Kitzman, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry nearly two years ago, has faced opposition from Democrats and Republicans in the upper chamber, several senators say. To remain as commissioner, she would need the support of at least two-thirds of senators in the current legislative session.

Insurance attorneys, including those handling injury claims will be both glad and sad to know about a recent case out of the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals. The case is styled, Lilly Helene Schaffer, M.D., v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and Nationwide Property and Casualty Co. The opinion was issued in May 2013.

The bad news was that a jury awarded zero dollars to a claimant (Schaffer) for pain and suffering. The good news was that the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals said that based on the injuries and the testimony of the witnesses that the award of zero damages was against the great weight of the evidence and remanded the case on this issue.

Here is some relevant information:

Attorneys handling insurance claims would want to keep up with general news in the world of insurance. The New York Times published an article of interest.

The article is titled, “For Insurers, No Doubt On Climate Change.” Here is what it tells us:

If there were one American industry that would be particularly worried about climate change it would have to be insurance, right? From Hurricane Sandy’s devastating blow to the Northeast to the protracted drought that hit the Midwest Corn Belt, natural catastrophes across the United States pounded insurers last year, generating $35 billion in privately insured property losses, $11 billion more than the average over the last decade.

Contact Information