Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Benbrook, Crowley, Burleson, and other parts of Tarrant County need to know the ways insurance companies fight.
The Austin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in December 2012, that illustrates some of this. The case is styled, In re Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
Old American filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order denying their plea in abatement. This Court denied the writ of mandamus.
Grand Prairie insurance attorneys need to understand the purpose and rules of insurance regulation.
As stated by the Texas Supreme Court in 1951, the insurance business affects the public interest and thus is subject to extensive regulation to prevent abuses. The rationale for this principle bears quoting at length. In an early case, the United States Supreme Court stated:
A contract for fire insurance is one for indemnity against loss, and is personal. The admission, however, does not take us far in the solution of the question presented. Its personal character certainly does not of itself preclude regulation, for there are many examples of government regulation in personal contracts, and in the statutes of every state in the Union superintendence and control over the business of insurance are exercised, varying in details and extent. We need not particularize in detail. We need only say that there was quite early state provision for what is known as the unearned premium fund or reserve; then came the limitation of dividends, the publishing of accounts, valued policies, standards of policies, prescribing investment, requiring deposits in money or bonds, confining the business to corporations, preventing discrimination in rates, limitations of risks, and other regulations equally restrictive. In other words, the state has stepped in and imposed conditions upon the companies, restraining the absolute liberty which businesses strictly private are permitted to exercise. Those regulations exhibit it to be the conception of the lawmaking bodies of the country without exception that the business of insurance so far affects the public welfare as to invoke and require governmental regulation. A conception so general cannot be without cause. The universal sense of a people cannot be accidental; its persistence saves it from the charge of unconsidered impulse, and its estimate of insurance certainly has substantial impulse, and its estimate of insurance certainly has substantial basis. Accidental fires are inevitable, and the extent of loss very great. The effect of insurance – indeed, it has been said to be its fundamental object – is to distribute the loss over as wide an area as possible. In other words, the loss is spread over the country, the disaster to an individual is shared by many, the disaster to a community shared by other communities; great catastrophes are thereby lessened, and, it may be, repaired. In assimilation of insurance to a tax, the companies have been said to be mere machinery by which the inevitable losses by fire are distributed so as to fall as lightly as possible on the public at large, the body of the insured, not the companies, paying the tax. Their efficiency, therefore, and solvency, are of great concern. The other objects, direct and indirect, of insurance, we need not mention. Indeed, it may be enough to say, without stating other effects of insurance, that a large part of the countries wealth, subject to uncertainty of loss through fire, is protected by insurance. This demonstrates the interest of the public in it, and we need not dispute with the economists that this is the result of the “substitution of certain for uncertain loss,’ or the diffusion of positive loss over a large group of persons, as we have already said to be considered a matter of public concern to regulate it, and, governmental insurance has its advocates and even examples. Contracts of insurance, therefore, have greater public consequence than contracts between individuals to do or not to do a particular thing whose effect stops with the individuals. We may say in passing that when the effect goes beyond that, there are many examples of regulation.
Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in North Richland Hills, Roanoke, Keller, Saginaw, and other places in the Tarrant County area need to keep up with opinions issued by the courts in Texas.
The United States District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, issued an opinion December 12, 2012, that is worth reading. This is an appeal from a summary judgment.
American General is in the business of issuing policies of life insurance. David Mickelson entered into an Agent Contract with American General to solicit applications for insurance plans. Mickelson’s Agent Contract requires agents to “repay to American General, on demand, any unearned commissions or service fees received by agents for, or with respect to, premiums or payments returned to policy or contract owners by American General for any reason.”
Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Arlington, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and other places in Tarrant County need to know about this.
ABC News ran a story on January 7th that makes you angry. Here is what the story tells us:
A Staten Island couple said their insurance company short-changed them after superstorm Sandy destroyed their home, and then used their house in a commercial.
Mineral Wells attorneys and those in Graford, Weatherford, Cool, Millsap, Garner, and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties need to understand how insurance policies work and are interpreted.
There is a Texas Supreme Court opinion issued in 1999, that is worth reading. The case is styled Urrutia v. Decker.
This case required the Court to determine the validity of liability insurance a truck leasing company provided to its customer as part of a rental transaction. Based on representations that $20,000 was all the insurance available, the claimant settled his bodily injury claim for that amount. When he later discovered the nature of the leasing company’s insurance arrangement, he sued the leasing company and its customer, seeking to set aside the previous settlement. The claimant urged that the settlement was obtained by fraud or resulted from the parties’ mutual mistake about the insurance available to pay his claims.
Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Garland, Mesquite, Richardson and other places in Dallas County need to know the insurance laws in Texas. But they also need to know what is going on in other states.
The Detroit Free Press published an article on January 2, 2013, that an insurance attorney should find interesting. The article tells us that a judge has ruled that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and must disclose how it calculates the annual fee assessed to each Michigan vehicle under the state’s no-fault auto insurance system.
Ingham County Circuit Judge Clinton Canady III issued the ruling late last week in a lawsuit brought by the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault and the Brain Injury Association of Michigan.
Dallas insurance attorneys and those in De Soto, Duncanville, Cedar Hill, and other parts of Dallas County need to know when or if an insurance company is properly voiding an insurance policy.
In addition to the common law standards, several statutory provisions regulate an insurance company’s ability to avoid coverage based on a misrepresentation by the insured. These are found in the Texas Insurance Code, (TIC) Chapter 705. The statute provides:
TIC, Section 705.003 – A provision stating that a misrepresentation in a proof of loss makes the policy void or voidable is of no effect and is not a defense, unless the misrepresentation was:
Fort Worth insurance attorneys and those in Benbrook, Burleson, Lake Worth, and other parts of Tarrant County need to know the effect of the representations made in an insurance application.
There is an important distinction between statements by the insured that are considered to be representations and those considered to be conditions precedent. If the insured’s statement is considered a representation, a false statement alone will not let the insurance company avoid coverage. In contrast, if the insured’s statement is considered a condition precedent, then falsity alone will allow the insurance company to void coverage.
This representation-versus-warranty dichotomy is well developed under Texas law. If the statements are representations, then to avoid liability under the policy the insurance company must plead and prove:
Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Arlington, Grapevine, North Richland Hills, and other places in Tarrant County know that auto liability insurance coverage is mandatory in the State of Texas if you are operating a motor vehicle.
What would be surprising to most in Texas is that some states do not have very effective enforcement mechanisms regarding the requirements of auto liability coverage. One of those states has been Alabama. That is now changing.
The Birmingham News published an article recently that tells us the word “mandatory,” when used in the context of a law, means “permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.”
Dallas insurance lawyers and those in Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Carrollton, and other places in Dallas County will end up seeing cases involves claims for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits.
PIP is required coverage in Texas on automobile insurance. The Texas Insurance Code, Sections 1952.151 through 1952.161, discuss this coverage. All auto policies must provide PIP unless it is rejected in writing. Because of this coverage, there is a significant amount of Texas drivers who have this coverage.
The State of Florida also requires this coverage but it is noteworthy that their requirements are different than those in Texas. But as Florida goes on auto coverage, so has Texas in many cases.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
