Attorneys in Parker County and elsewhere need to have an understanding of the issues coming up surrounding the effective date of a life insurance policy.
A 1980, Texas Supreme Court opinion gives some guidance on this issue. The style of the case is Life Insurance Company of the Southwest v. Overstreet and results from a dispute in Fort Worth.
Here is some relevant information:
Grand Prairie insurance attorneys need to know what is prohibited to be put in a life insurance policy by an insurance company.
The Texas Insurance Code has sections that say what some of these prohibitions are.
Some of the more important sections are Texas Insurance Code, Sections 705.001 through 705.004. 705.003 tells us that an insurance policy provision that states that a misrepresentation, including a false statement, made in a proof of loss or death makes the policy void or voidable, has no effect, and is not a defense in a lawsuit brought on the policy unless the insurance company can prove the following:
Weatherford attorneys may run across a situation in a recent Waco Court of Appeals opinion. Here is what it tells us.
The dispute in this case centers on who is entitled to insurance proceeds associated with a house that burned down. Taylor claims that she is entitled to the proceeds because, she and Lough lived together in a house from 2005 to 2007. Apparently, Taylor continued living in the house after the couple broke up and Lough moved out in mid-2007.
In any event, on March 1, 2007, Lough, an “unmarried person,” executed a homestead lien contract and deed of trust with the Bank for a loan secured by the property at issue in this case–the proceeds of which, according to Taylor, were used to buy land to move Lough’s feed store. The contract and deed of trust specifically stated that Lough granted the Bank a lien . . . “in and to the following described real property, together with all improvements, all proceeds (including without limitation premium refunds) of each policy of insurance relating to any of the improvements, or the Real Property . . . .”
Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to know the areas of dispute concerning life insurance policies.
Life insurance coverage is pretty plain to understand. If the person whose life is covered under a life insurance policy dies, then the insurance company is to pay benefits to the named insured. Here are a list of reasons why a dispute may arise concerning the payment of benefits under a life insurance policy:
1) An insurance agent may misrepresent the benefits of his insurance company policy to induce the insured person to switch from another company to the one he represents and can make a commission from;
Fort Worth life insurance attorneys should know this – but here goes with a reminder.
The most common life insurance types are term, whole life, and universal life.
“Term” life insurance policies simply provide a death benefit in return for a premium payment. At the end of the policy year, or “term,” the insurance ends, and the policy has no value. Most of these are for 10 or 20 years. Because the insured person is only paying for the death benefit, term policies are cheaper in the early years. As the insured person gets older, the risk of death increases and so does the premium, so term policies may become more expensive that the other types of life insurance. Insurance companies typically sell term policies that promise a fixed premium for a set number of years as stated above. This means an insurance company that sells a term policy for a fixed period, such as 10 years, will not be allowed to increase the premiums during that 10 year period.
Dallas insurance attorneys must know that when a person makes a claim for coverage under his own insurance policy, that the person has a duty to co-operate with the insurance company in their investigation of the claim.
The insured is required by the policy to co-operate with the insurance company investigation by submitting the claim promptly, completing claim forms, providing access to damaged property and records, and signing sworn proofs of loss. As stated by the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1999 case, Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, these requirements on the insured constitute a condition precedent to coverage under a policy of insurance. This means the insurance company has no duty to provide benefits under the policy until this co-operation has been given.
A typical homeowners policy would provide for these requirements:
Grand Praire insurance law lawyers need to understand some of the definitions and interpretations of coverages in an auto insurance policy.
So, what are some of the basic exclusions to collision and comprehensive coverage? To start, most policy’s exclude loss due to “wear and tear.” An insurance policy is not a maintenance policy. It is intended to provide coverage for the unexpected and unforeseen. This was stated in the 1952, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case, Republic Casualty v. Mayfield, and is still good law. A policy would also exclude damage due to freezing, mechanical or electrical break down or failure, or road damage to tires.
Here is how damages are handled or calculated:
Weatherford insurance attorneys need to be aware of this recent United States District Court, Dallas Division, opinion. The style is DeCluette v. State Farm Lloyds and Ruben Gallegos.
Here is some relevant information:
According to DeCluette, he purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm to protect their residence in the event of damage. Storms struck Dallas County and damaged his residential property. He filed a claim with State Farm against the insurance policy for various damages to the residential property resulting from the storm. Ruben Gallegos was an employee of State Farm, serving as an insurance adjuster for the claim. Gallegos allegedly failed to thoroughly investigate and properly adjust DeCluettes’ property damage claims. As a result of Gallegos’ allegedly improper adjustment of the claim, State Farm denied a portion of the insurance claim.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to read this opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued on February 2013. The style of the case is, Canal Indemnity Company v. Rapid Logistics, Incorporated.
Here is some relevant information:
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action involving an insurance coverage dispute. Canal Indemnity Company filed suit against its insured, Rapid Logistics, Inc. a trucking company. Canal argued that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Rapid Logistics in a state court negligence lawsuit that stemmed from a tractor-trailer accident. The district court granted Canal’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Canal had no duty to defend or indemnify Rapid Logistics with respect to the state court action. Finding no reversible error, this court affirmed.
Fort Worth insurance law attorneys need to be aware of an opinion issued by the United States District Court in Houston.
The style of the case is, Landing Council of Co-Owners v. Federal Insurance Company.
Here is some relevant information:
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
