Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Insurance Agent Negligence

December 30, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys need to understand what constitutes negligence by an insurance agent. A 1987, San Antonio Court of Appeals case looks at this. The style of the case is, Rainey-Mapes v. Queen Charters, Inc.

Here are some facts:

This case involves appeals arising from the non-payment of an insurance claim. William Gordon, president of Queen Charters, Inc., individually and as co-principal with Queen Charters, Inc. contracted to purchase a sailboat from the Estate of Theodore Schmidt (Schmidt). The boat, valued at $150,000.00, was purchased for $100,000.00. Gordon and Queen Charters (Gordon/Queen Charters) paid $5,000.00 down payment on the boat, and executed a promissory note to Schmidt for the balance of $95,000.00. The sales agreement required the buyers to maintain insurance on the vessel, which protected Schmidt as the loss payee. Gordon contacted the Sanger & Altgelt Insurance Agency (Sanger) to procure the required insurance. Sanger, acting as an agent for Gordon/Queen Charters, contacted Rainey-Mapes, an insurance broker, to obtain the insurance as Sanger does not normally handle maritime insurance. Rainey-Mapes contacted Southern Maritime Underwriters Limited who in turn contacted the Colony Insurance Company. Colony ultimately issued the insurance policy to Gordon/Queen Charters.

Insurance Agent Liability

December 29, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys need to be able to recognize when and if an insurance agent does something wrong.

A 1992, Amarillo Court of Appeals case provides some good discussion on this issue. The style of the case is, Pickens v. Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.

Here is some of the relevant information.

Negligence Of Insurance Agents

December 27, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to know the law as it regards the negligence of insurance agents.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1985, dealing with this issue. The case is styled, Kitching v. Zamora.

Here is some relevant case information:

Governmental Regulation Impact On Lawsuits

December 25, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys need to understand the impact of government regulation on insurance litigation.

The extensive regulation of insurance has a direct impact on private litigation. Numerous examples can be cited.

1) Numerous states dictate the type of coverage that must be provided, and the forms that must be used. In Texas, see the Texas Insurance Code (TIC) in the following areas,

Business Of Insurance

December 23, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas insurance attorneys and others need to know and understand the business of insurance.

The Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the insurance business affects the public interest and thus is extensive regulation to prevent abuses.

This regulation is current enforced by the Texas Department of Insurance.

Policy Cancellation

December 22, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance lawyers need to know when an insurance policy is properly cancelled by an insurance company.

A 2001, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case helps to explain this. The case is styled, Jones v. Ray Insurance Agency.

Here is some background:

Bad Faith Litigation

December 20, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys need to keep up with what is happening in bad faith cases across the country. The Insurance Journal published an article that deals with this issue across the country.

It tells us a rising tide of first-party bad faith decisions is defining the contours of the bad faith cause of action.

Recently, three courts have found first-party insurance companies liable for bad faith claims handling. However, there are also two recent bad faith decisions in favor of the insurance company. Key aspects of each of these important cases are discussed below.

Market Value In Insurance Cases

December 18, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers need to read this case. The style of the case is, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Joseph Wilde. The opinion was issued by the El Paso Court of Appeals.

Texas Farm appeals from a judgment awarding Wilde damages, lost profits, and attorney’s fees resulting from a jury verdict that Texas Farm committed unfair or deceptive settlement practices under Texas Insurance Code Section 541.060. This court reversed a judgment in favor or Wilde and rendered a take-nothing judgment.

Wilde had a policy of insurance with Texas Farm which insured Wilde’s 1999 John Deere 7455 cotton stripper for a maximum value of $90,000. Wilde filed a claim on the policy after the cotton stripper caught fire on December 16, 2005, and was “completely destroyed.” After Texas Farm denied Wilde’s claim, Wilde filed suit for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair settlement practices, and sought to recover damages for the market value of the cotton stripper, lost profits, attorney’s fees, and treble damages.

Insurance Policy Interpretation Issues

December 16, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers need to be aware of this recent Federal District Court case. It is styled Colony Insurance Company v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company. It is an appeal from a summary judgement.

This is an action for breach of contract and associated damages against Defendant arising out of Defendant’s refusal to defend its insured, Bell Tech Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Bell Tech Training School, and Bell Tech Home Health Care.

Defendant issued a policy of liability insurance to Bell Tech, which is a licensed provider of home and community based services. The policy required that Defendant defend Bell Tech against covered claims arising out of the use of covered automobiles. The policy provides coverage as follows:

Lawyer Needed To Evaluate Bad Faith Claims

December 15, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford bad faith attorneys need to know about this recent court opinion from the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals. The style of the case is Ruth McGhan v. Farmers Insurance Exchange. Here are some facts.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Farmers Insurance Exchange, and against Ruth McGhan in a case involving damages to her lake house. By one issue, McGhan claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Farmers failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of her claim as “no representative from Farmers inspected the damage to McGhan’s 3,500 square foot roof,” which gave rise to McGhan’s statutory, common law and breach of contract claims.

McGhan originally filed suit against Charles Archer, Diana Kees, Archer Development Group, and Bill and Alice Clayton with respect to repairs that allegedly needed to be made to her home. Farmers had not yet been sued, but the pleadings alleged that coverage had been denied. Farmers was not named as a defendant until McGhan’s third amended petition in which she asserted that Farmers denied her claims because the claims were not covered losses. The lawsuit asserted claims of breach of contract, bad faith, deceptive trade practices, and negligence. In McGhan’s fourth amended petition, filed after the summary judgment was heard, McGhan alleged for the first time that no representative of Farmers adequately inspected the roof when she made her claims in 2007. Her causes of action against Farmers remained the same as alleged in the third amended petition.