Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Mortgage Life Insurance Attorney Needed

December 13, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to know about this case. It is an opinion issued by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005. It is styled, Monumental Life Insurance Company v. Hayes Jenkins.

Here are some facts:

In November 2000, the insureds, husband and wife, purchased a house executing a mortgage note and an escrow agreement with the lender. Two months later the lender, by agreement with the insurer, mailed an unsolicited application for a mortgage life insurance policy underwritten by the insurer. All the enclosed materials promised a payoff of the mortgage balance up to $300,000 in the event of one of the insured’s death and emphasized a “no risk” 30 day trial period. The insureds promptly completed and mailed the application. The husband died four days after the policy became effective, but before the mortgage company issued the first month’s premium payment and the wife demanded that the proceeds of the mortgage life policy be applied to liquidate the remaining loan balance pursuant to the terms of the policy. The insurer refused and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that at the time of the husband’s death the policy was not in force for failure by the insureds to pay the required premium. The wife counterclaimed against the insurer for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA. She also filed a third party complaint against the mortgage lender asserting claims for breach of the escrow agreement, negligence, and violations of the DTPA and Insurance Code. The district court granted the insurer and the lender’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing all of the wife’s counterclaims and third party claims and this appeal followed.

Life Insurance Lawyer Needed

December 11, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance attorneys need to read and know this case. It is an opinion issued by the Texas Supreme Court in 1990. The style of the case is Koral Industries v. Security Connecticut Life Insurance Co.

Here are some of the facts:

Koral Industries sought a new life insurance policy for one of its key employees, Lewis Lindsey, in 1984. Lindsey did not disclose damaging medical history regarding treatment over the five years prior to his application, a history which included hospitalization in 1981, 1982, and 1983, and counseling and treatment for depression and excessive use of alcohol. A medical information agency had reported treatment for mental or nervous disorders from 1976-78, and Lindsey’s physician reported treatment for anxiety.

Life Insurance Misrepresentations

December 9, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Dallas life insurance lawyers need to know this case. The case is styled Lilly Sharp v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Company. The opinion was issued by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals in 1988.

This lawsuit was filed by Lilly Sharp after the death of her daughter.

Lincoln had denied the claim based on misrepresentations by the insured in the policy application. The trial judge ruled in favor of Lincoln and this appealed followed.

Life Insurance Denied

December 8, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth life insurance attorneys need to know this case. The case is styled Republic-Vanguard Life Insurance Company v. Beth Walters. It is a 1987, opinion from the 1st District Court of Appeals. Here is some background.

In 1981, the deceased, James Walters, applied to Republic for mortgage protection insurance. On his application, he stated he knew of no impairment to his health. Republic requested an examination by a registered nurse. He told her of various ailments, and that he had gained 50 pounds in the previous year “due to beer drinking,” that he had been wounded in Viet Nam.

When the nurse asked about impaired sight or hearing, mental illness, cancer, growth, rupture or syphilis, James said no. James provided names of his doctors and the hospital he had been in.

Omnibus Clause In Auto Policy

December 6, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys and those in Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, Millsap, and other places in Parker County need to know and understand the “Omnibus Clause” in an auto insurance policy.

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1967, in the case styled Phoenix Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company. The case is still good law.

This is an appeal that arises from a declaratory judgement action and discusses the omnibus clause in Phoenix’s auto policy.

Who is “Any Person” In An Auto Insurance Policy

December 4, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys and those in Springtown, Willow Park, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to have an understanding of how to interpret an auto insurance policy.

Most auto insurance policies will have wording to the effect that there is coverage provided by the policy for “any person” using the covered auto.

An individual covered under this clause (that is, a non-family member using the covered auto) is referred to in Texas case law as an omnibus insured, covered person or an insured by definition. These types of clauses are sometimes referred to as omnibus clauses. Texas cases using it this way include cases from the Texas Supreme Court as far back as 1979. Various other Courts of Appeal have said the same in 1972, 1973, and 1994. A Dallas Court of Appeals opinion issued in 1962 said, “A named insured is the one who purchases the policy, presumably has it in his possession and is deemed to know the contents of the contract he made. On the other hand an ‘omnibus insured‘ under a comprehensive policy stand in the position of a third party beneficiary of a contract to which he is not a party, but is a stranger.” The style of the Dallas case is, Standard Acc. Ins. Co. V Employers Cas. Co. Here is some background for reference:

Gripes About Insurance Arbitration Requirements

December 2, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys and those in Duncanville, De Soto, Cedar Hill, Lancaster, Irving, Mesquite, Garland, and other places in Dallas County need to know changes that are being contemplated by the Texas Department of Insurance.

One change currently being contemplated is good news for insurance policy holders. Here is an excerpt from a bulletin put out recently.

“The Texas Department of Insurance is considering a rule to prohibit pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration provisions in insurance products.

Life Insurance Concerns

December 1, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys need to keep up with what is going on in the insurance community. Reuters recently published an article titled “Insurance Industry Woes Hit Consumers.”

The article starts out telling us something obvious: Nobody wants to feel sorry for life insurance companies. They are just the annoying folk who make you think about death, cash your checks, and then give you grief if you ever have to file a claim, right?

But then gets serious and tells us: Don’t be so cynical. These are challenging times for the insurance industry. Company representatives meeting in Washington for the annual American Council of Life Insurers conference seemed downright gloomy, and if asked, were eager to tick off the troubles facing them.

Uninsured Definition

November 29, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers will run across situations where the definition of “uninsured” is not clear. One of those situations was present in a recent Austin Court of Appeals case. The case is styled, Nealey Michelle Malham v. Government Employees Insurance Company.

Here is some relevant information.

Malham was injured in a motor vehicle accident in which the car in which she was a passenger was struck by a pickup truck owned by the City of Killeen and driven by a city employee while working. Malham sued the City and its employee alleging that she suffered injuries as the result of the employee’s negligent acts and that the City was vicariously liable for its employee. Malham settled her claims against the City and the employee in exchange for payment to her of $87,500. Thereafter, Malham filed a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage provision of her GEICO policy seeking to recover medical expenses related to back surgery she alleges was recommended to treat injuries sustained in the accident. In the underlying cause of action, Malham sought a declaration that the City vehicle that struck the car she was riding in was an “uninsured motor vehicle,” as that term is defined in her contract with GEICO, and that she was entitled to recover $300,000 from GEICO under the terms and conditions of the uninsured-motorist coverage contained in the policy. After a bench trial, the court rendered a final take-nothing judgment in GEICO’s favor. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its conclusion that GEICO was not liable to Malham for the payment of any uninsured motorist benefits under the terms and conditions of her GEICO policy. This appeal followed.

Lawyer Sues Insurance Company

November 27, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth lawyers and those in Saginaw, North Richland Hills, Grapevine, and other places in Tarrant County need to keep up with lawyer news and insurance news. The American Bar Association ran an article on October 11, describing an attorney suing an insurance company.

The article tells us a jury trial was beginning for a Texas lawyer seeking $25 million in a tortious interference suit against an insurance company with which he formerly had dealings while representing plaintiffs in asbestos cases.

The lawyer contends that Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. set him up to face criminal prosecution, without appropriate basis, in order to conceal the involvement of two of its own claims processors in a $3 million extortion from him, reports Bloomberg in a lengthy article about the case. He argues that the insurer protected the two employees to preclude their telling regulators about a lack of reserved funds at the time of the scheme to cover asbestos-related claims.