Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to understand the difference between life insurance and betting when life insurance is obtained in a business setting.

A1998, Houston (14th) Court of Appeals case gives some guidance. The style of the case is, Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. Here is some relevant information.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the employer, NCS, of the deceased, Ramon Tamez. This court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Dallas life insurance lawyers need to know the “slayer’s rule” regarding life insurance policies.

This rule is written into law in Texas Insurance Code, Section 887.205. It says in part, “A beneficiary of a life insurance certificate forfeits the beneficiary’s interest in the certificate if the beneficiary is the principle or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured. The nearest relative of the insured is entitled to the proceeds of an insurance certificate forfeited under this section.

The Texas Supreme Court also said this in the 1987, case “Crawford v. Coleman.” Here are some facts:

Dallas insurance lawyers need to understand when a change of beneficiary is valid in a life insurance policy. A 1984, Texas Supreme Court case had this as an issue. Here is some relevant information about that case:

Herschel Tomlinson, Sr. brought this suit against Sally O. Jones to recover $39,700 in life insurance proceeds which Mr. Tomlinson, Sr. alleged were wrongfully paid to Ms. Jones after the death of Herschel “Tommy” Tomlinson, Jr. Tommy was the son of Herschel Tomlinson, Sr. and the husband of Sally O. Jones. After a jury trial, the trial judge granted Ms. Jones judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Tommy was employed by Producers Grain Company in Amarillo, Texas and was covered by two life insurance policies issued in 1968 and 1969.

Dallas life insurance lawyers have another old case to be aware of. This is a 1953, Texas Supreme Court case styled, Creighton et al. v. Barnes. Here is some relevant information to know on this case:

Petitioners in this case, the mother, daughter and a sister of B. B. Barnes, as the named beneficiaries of the two Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company policies, filed this suit against the Insurance Company for the proceeds of the two policies. The Insurance Company answered with an interpleader suit, wherein it impleaded respondent, the third wife and surviving widow of B. B. Barnes, and said that all of the petitioners and the respondent were claiming the right to the proceeds of both policies, and tendered the money into court, and asked the court to decide which of the claimants were entitled to receive the funds and asked that it be discharged with its costs and attorneys’ fees. Respondent answered claiming the proceeds by virtue of the will of B. B. Barnes. All parties arrived at a stipulation as to the facts in the case, and each party filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court had a hearing, and sustained petitioners’ motion and denied respondent’s motion and granted judgment for petitioners for a certain part of the proceeds and for respondent for the balance. On final appeal, this Court sustained the trial court.

It was stipulated that the petitioners are the ones named as beneficiaries in the two policies, and entitled to recover the proceeds thereof unless B. B. Barnes changed the payment of these proceeds in favor of his wife by the provisions of his last will and testament.

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to know this 1967, case from the Texas Supreme Court. The style is McFarland v. Franklin Life Ins. Co. Here is the relevant info.

This appeal involves an asserted right to recover a twelve per cent penalty and attorney’s fees under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. The principal question to be decided is whether Franklin Life Insurance, respondent, had reasonable grounds for anticipating rival claims. This Court said no.

In 1950 respondent 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, the latter of whom is petitioner here. Bernard was named in the policy as primary beneficiary, and petitioner 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 petitioner. Petitioner brought this suit against respondent to recover the amount due on the policy plus the statutory penalty and attorney’s fees. Respondent 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 petitioner the money so deposited but allowed no penalty or attorney’s fee. The only question brought forward on appeal was whether petitioner is entitled to recover such penalty, attorney’s fee and court costs.