Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Life Insurance Attorney – Suicide

May 19, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to read and know this 1986, Amarillo Court of Appeals case. It is styled, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co v. Dettle. Here is some relevant information:

Southern Farm is appealing from a trial court finding in favor or Dettle. The controversy arose from the Southern Farm’s failure to pay death benefits on a policy insuring the life of Douglas Dee Dettle. The deceased-insured was found dead in his apartment. He died as the result of a single shotgun wound to his lower abdomen and genital area. Southern Farm defended on a suicide exclusion in the policy. In response to special issues, the jury determined that the deceased’s death was not a suicide.

Southern Farm argued “the trial court’s definition of the term ‘suicide’ erroneously included the element of intent, thereby placing upon Southern Farm a greater burden of proof than that required under either its contractual language or Texas law.”

Insurance Law Attorney – Example Of Why To Get One

May 18, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance law attorneys would find this case to be a good case to show clients when trying to explain why the client needs an attorney.

The style of the case is, Amy Warmbrod v. USAA County Mutual Insurance Company. This is an El Paso Court of Appeals opinion issued in April 2012.

Amy Warmbrod filed suit against USAA alleging various causes of action and seeking damages arising out of USAA’s handling of her underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. Warmbrod appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of USAA.

Life Insurance & Separation

May 16, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance lawyers need to be aware of this 1981, Eastland Court of Appeals case. The style is Pilot Life Insurance Company v. Koch. Here is some of the relevant information:

This is a declaratory judgment case. Pilot Life 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. A jury found that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated at the time of her death. Although that separation was pursuant to a “temporary” court order entered in the pending divorce proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Koch, the trial court entered judgment for Koch notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that under Texas law there is no status of legal separation of a husband and wife before the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

On appeal Pilot Life contended that the trial court erred because the evidence established that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were separated pursuant to an order of a district court and thus they were legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death; and, were, therefore, legally separated within the contemplation of the policy. Pilot Life also urged that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that Mr. and Mrs. Koch were not legally separated on the date of Mrs. Koch’s death.

Life Insurance Beneficiary

May 14, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington life insurance attorneys need to have this 1967, Texas Supreme Court case, at hand in case the need for it arises. The style of the case is, McFarland v. Franklin Life Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

In 1950, Franklin Life issued a policy of insurance on the life of John V. McFarland, who was about nine years of age at the time. The policy was taken out by his parents, Bernard and Gwendolyn McFarland. Bernard was named in the policy as primary beneficiary, and Gwendolyn was designated as contingent beneficiary. John married in 1962 and died the following year. His father predeceased him; he was survived by his widow and Gwendolyn. McFarland brought this suit against Franklin Life to recover the amount due on the policy plus the statutory penalty and attorney’s fees. Franklin Life interpleaded Mrs. John V. McFarland, admitted liability for the proceeds of the policy, and paid the funds into court. The trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded McFarland the money so deposited but allowed no penalty or attorney’s fee, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The only question brought forward on appeal was whether McFarland is entitled to recover such penalty, attorney’s fee and court costs.

It is generally held that ‘where the insurer admits liability, but has reasonable grounds for anticipating rival claims, and in good faith declines to pay the named beneficiary, and deposits the money in court to be paid to the rightful person as determined by the court, it is not liable for more than the face amount of the policy.’

Life Insurance And Good Health Provision

May 12, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie life insurance attorneys need to know about this 1979, Texas Supreme Court case. It is styled, A. W. Washington v. The Reliable Life Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information.

In October 1974 Reliable issued three life insurance policies pursuant to separate applications made by the insured, Ozell Washington, who named her son, A. W. Washington, as beneficiary.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance of these policies are as follows.

Life Insurance Claim – When Does Coverage Begin

May 11, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to understand the 1980, Texas Supreme Court case, Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest v. Overstreet. Here is some relevant background information.

In February, 1972, Overstreet submitted his application to Southwest to convert a five-year term life policy to a life insurance policy with endowment at age ninety. The earlier policy provided that it would lapse on March 15, 1972. To effect the conversion of the term policy to the policy at issue, Overstreet, on March 6, 1972, delivered his premium check to insurer. It was returned because of insufficient funds. Overstreet then wrote a second check which was also returned for insufficient funds. His third check cleared the bank on April 18, 1972.

The insurer treated March 15 as the date annual premiums were due and sent notices to Overstreet on that basis. On March 6, 1973, insurer sent a notice to Overstreet advising him that his annual premium was due on March 15. After he failed to make his payment on that date, the insurer, on April 5, sent him another notice advising that the grace period for late payment would expire April 15. Overstreet still made no payment. The insurer, on April 15, sent him a further notice advising that the premium was past due and that the policy had been terminated. The notice offered, however, to reinstate the policy if Overstreet paid the premium within ten days. On April 25, the last day of the ten-day period, Overstreet paid the premium, which was for the 1973 insurance year. That premium payment was the last that Overstreet ever made. He did not pay his 1974 premium, and he died on April 24 of that year.

Life Insurance Policy Limitations That Are Illegal

May 9, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to know about these sections of the Texas Insurance Code that prohibit certain limitations in a life insurance policy.

Here’s the first one to know:

Texas Insurance Code, Section 1101.053. This sections says that “A life insurance policy may not include a provision that limits the time during which an action under the policy may be commenced to a period of less than two years after the cause of action accrues.”

Fighting Insurance Companies

May 7, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance lawyers who deal with insurance companies very often probably already know this, but for those of you who do not – here is what you need to know and consider when dealing with an insurance company.

1) An insurance company is not your friend. They may sound nice initially when talking with you but they are, from the start, working and trying to find ways to keep from paying on a claim. That is what they do. Never make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Their job is to make money by keeping from paying claims any way they can.

2) The Texas Insurance Code is one place where the laws governing insurance companies and their conduct is regulated. The Texas Department of Insurance is suppose to regulate the insurance companies. The reality is that TDI is overworked and understaffed. If you really want to be treated right by an insurance company – then you must hire an attorney.

Life Insurance Company Pays Wrong Person

May 5, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas Life Insurance lawyers need to know this case.

The case is styled Wilke v. Finn et al. It is a 1931, that was approved by the Texas Court of Appeals. Here is some relevant information.

The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, on December 31, 1923, issued to Herman Finn a policy of life insurance in the sum of $1,500, in which Fred Wilke was named the beneficiary.

Insurance lawyers need to be able to advise clients when it is appropriate for them to be beneficiaries in insurance policies

May 4, 2013 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to be able to advise clients when it is appropriate for them to be named beneficiaries in an insurance policies.

A 1942, Texas Court of Appeals case styled, Drane v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. et. is good for guidance. Here is some relevant information.

Although not related by blood or marriage to Ezell, Jr., nor indebted to him in any way, Miss Drane named him as beneficiary in two insurance policies totaling $10,510 and providing for double indemnity in the event of accidental death. Her executor contends that her beneficiary is not entitled to the money because he had no insurable interest in her life. If this contention is correct it would be contrary to public policy to allow Ezell, Jr., to recover.