Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Agent Responsibility For Informing Of Policy Expiration

November 8, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth Insurance Law attorneys need to know the responsibilities of agents in order to know when an agent has violated duties it owes to its insureds.

A 1992, opinion issued by the Amarillo Court of Appeals is noteworthy for the guidance its gives on this matter. The style of the case is, Horn v. Hedgecoke Insurance Agency. Here is some of the relevant information.

This appeal presents the novel question whether an insurance agency, through which an insurance policy was issued naming a mortgagee to whom a loss was payable and who paid the premium, has a duty of reasonably informing the mortgagee of the expiration and non-renewal of the policy by the named insured.

Agent Did Not Inform Insured Of Policy ExpIration

November 6, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Parker County Attorneys who handle insurance cases need to know case law that will help clients. So, what does case law tell an attorney about agent responsibilities about keeping customers informed as to when a policy is fixing to expire?

In 1985, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case styled, Woodie Kitching et ux. v. Pete O. Zamora. Here is what this case tells us.

This is an appeal that arises from a negligence lawsuit brought by Woodie and Sandra Kitching against their flood insurance agent, Pete O. Zamora. At issue is whether an insurance agent can be held liable for failing to keep a customer informed about the expiration date of the customer’s insurance policy. The trial court rendered judgment for the Kitchings. This Court upheld that judgment.

Something On Flood Insurance Law

November 4, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford attorneys who handle insurance claims need to be aware of laws related to flood insurance. Here are a couple of cases that are good to know.

The first case is styled, Wright v. Allstate Insurance Company. It is a Federal Court opinion that was issued in 2007, by the 5th Circuit.

The insured homeowner sued Write Your Own insurer for fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising out of Tropical Storm Allison flood damage. Allstate had rejected Wright’s claim because of failure to cooperate and failure to file an adequate proof of loss. The district court found that Wright had failed to prove all of his damages were caused by flooding. In a prior appeal, the 5th Circuit had ruled that state law claims were pre-empted. Wright sought to amend the complaint to assert federal common law extra-contractual claims for fraud and misrepresentation.

Builder’s Risk Insurance

November 3, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in other parts of Texas are going to run across various types of commercial insurance policies. One of those is known as “Builder’s Risk” policy. Here is a case dealing with a “Builder’s Risk” policy.

The case is styled, North American Shipbuilding v. Southern Marine and Aviation Underwriting. This is a 1996, opinion issued by the Houston Court of Appeals, 1st Dist.

The case involves the insuring of the hull of a ship during construction. North American purchased the builder’s risk policy through the insurance brokerage firm of Adams & Porter. Adams & Porter purchased the policy through a wholesale broker, Southern Marine, from the Underwriters. The policy insured against “all risks of physical loss of or damage to the vessel occurring during the currency of this policy except: … in the event that faulty design of any part or parts should cause physical loss or damage to the vessel.”

Jewelry Policy

November 1, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Fort Worth, Dallas, Duncanville, Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, and other places in the Dallas and Fort Worth area will run across various types of insurance policies. The most common are automobile policies and homeowners insurance policies. But there are also life insurance policies, disability policies and credit policies. Those are all normal. But there are also types of policies you do not see very often. One type that is rarely seen is insurance that covers specialty items such as jewelry.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals had a case in 1996, that dealt with the theft of jewelry. The style of the case is, “Tivoli Corp. v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co.” Here is a brief discussion of the opinion.

Kessler, a jewelry salesman, was traveling between sales locations when he stopped at a check cashing business owned by a friend. Kessler parked his car in the parking lot and left $78,000.00 worth of jewelry in his trunk. He went inside, used the restroom and stood by a window with his friend in a secured area. Kessler then saw thieves taking the jewelry from his car’s trunk. He ran from the secured area through the lobby and attempted unsuccessfully to stop the thieves. The insured notified the agent of the theft and filed a proof of loss for the jewelry. Jewelers Mutual denied the claim stating that the jewelry was not in Kessler’s possession and that the unattended vehicle exclusion provision applied. This exclusion excluded coverage of jewelry in transit unless the property was at all times in the possession of the person transporting it or in a vehicle that was attended.

Insurance Premiums

October 30, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Arlington insurance lawyers and those in other places in Tarrant County need to keep themselves informed as to all issues related to insurance. Here is an article that deals with auto insurers and the way they charge premiums. The article was published in the New York Times in September of 2012. The interesting aspect of the article is how insurance companies use factors unrelated to driving to set rates.

Automobile insurers may use factors unrelated to driving, like education and occupation, in determining rates.

Now, a consumer group is urging state insurance commissioners to restrict insurers’ ability to use those factors, arguing that the result has been unfairly high rates for lower-income drivers. Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, said in a call this week with reporters that premiums should mainly reflect factors like accidents, speeding tickets and miles driven.

Insurance Lawyers Should Know Negligent Entrustment

October 28, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers and all those in Tarrant County should know what “negligent entrustment” is as it relates to auto claims.

Negligent entrustment in auto claims is where one person allows another person to use their auto when they should be aware that it is an unsafe thing to do. This is better explained by the Tyler Court of Appeals in a 1998, case styled, Huynh v. R. Warehousing & Port Services, Inc.

Here are some facts. Specifically, Huynh was driving her Hyundai automobile when she was involved in an accident with Thompson near the intersection of 610 Loop and IH-10 in Houston. Exactly how the accident occurred and who was negligent was contested at trial. Huynh sued Warehousing for negligently entrusting their vehicle a driver who refused to take a drug test after the accident.

Insurance Claim Denial

October 27, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance lawyers and those in Dallas and other areas will run across situations where an insurance company is denying a claim based on the defense of arson. This happened in the case, Southland Lloyd’s Insurance Company v. Tomberlain. The case is a Texas Supreme Court case decided in 1996.

Here is some relevant information:

Charles W. Tomberlain is an independent insurance agent who owns the Charles Tomberlain Insurance Agency in Longview. His son, Chuck Tomberlain, is an agent with the agency. In addition, Chuck Tomberlain owns and manages numerous real properties in and around Longview. In 1988, Chuck Tomberlain purchased a small house, for $13,200.00. Chuck Tomberlain then spent approximately $500.00-$1,000.00 improving the house. On September 9, 1988, Chuck Tomberlain executed a contract for sale of the house to Trennis Willis for $20,000.00, to be paid in monthly installments over ten years at twelve percent interest. Willis immediately began occupying the house. Chuck Tomberlain, acting as agent for the Charles Tomberlain Insurance Agency, issued a policy on the house with Republic Insurance Company in August 1988. On August 15, 1991, the Republic insurance policy on the house expired. Chuck Tomberlain did not renew the policy at that time because his father’s agency had stopped writing policies with Republic.

Insurance Lawyers And Misrepresentation In Policy Application

October 25, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance lawyers and those in Benbrook, Crowley, Lake Worth, Saginaw, and other places in Tarrant County need to keep up with as many cases as they can related to insurance issues. This would include cases that deal with the application that is made in the process of trying to obtain insurance. An experienced Insurance Law Attorney will know details to look for to help a client.

The Texas Insurance Code has many sections that are helpful to lawyers trying to find ways to assist a client obtain insurance benefits. One of those is Section 705.004. It tells us that:

(a) An insurance policy provision that states that false statements made in the application for the policy or in the policy make the policy void or voidable:

Insurance Attorneys And Reading The Policy

October 23, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys and those in Benbrook, Burleson, Crowley, and other parts of Tarrant County need to keep up with recent cases.

Here is one that was decided on September 2012. The style of the case is, Wendy Rutherford Branham v. State Farm Lloyds. The opinion was issued by the San Antonio Court of Appeals.

Branham sued State Farm Lloyds for failing to provide a defense and indemnity with regard to a lawsuit filed against her by Patrick and Melissa McCullough. The McCulloughs’ lawsuit was based on a contract they entered into with Branham to purchase a home from her. In their petition, the McCulloughs alleged that Branham “falsely represented that there was no (1) previous flooding into the home, (2) water penetration into the home, (3) active infestation of termites or other wood destroying insects, (4) previous termite or wood destroying insect damage repaired, and (5) termite or wood destroying insect damage needing repair.” The McCulloughs further alleged that Branham “failed to disclose to Plaintiffs the previous problems with water penetration and damage to the home and that Ms. Branham had filed a homeowners’ insurance claim for water damages sustained in the home.” The McCulloughs also claimed that although Branham “was paid on these water damage claims by her homeowners’ insurance carrier,” she “did not make proper repairs to the home or if she did, only made cosmetic repairs to conceal the damages.” The McCulloughs asserted numerous causes of action against Branham based on these allegations including: (1) fraudulent concealment for making affirmative false representations or omitting to disclose material facts, alleging the representations and concealments were “made with knowledge of the real facts;” (2) breach of contract for “failing to disclose the home’s previous water penetration problems and damages, thereby, fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs into entering the contract;” (3) negligence for failing to properly disclose the condition of the home; (4) DTPA violations; (5) negligent misrepresentations by supplying false information and not exercising reasonable care or competence in communicating the information; (6) common-law fraud and fraud by non-disclosure; and (7) violation of section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code for making misrepresentations in a transaction involving real estate that Branham knew were false.