Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Subrogation – How Does It Work

August 16, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford lawyers and those in Springtown, Hudson Oaks, Aledo, Azle, Mineral Wells, Graford, Brock, and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties need to have an understanding of subrogation any time they are dealing with a case involving insurance claims.

An insurance company who has paid an insured loss may be entitled to reimbursement from a third party that is responsible for causing the loss. This right of recovery arises under the equitable doctrine of “subrogation.” Some insurance policies also provide a contractual subrogation right.

Subrogation places one party in the place of another so that the new party gains the right of the former party regarding a claim. In this context, the insurance company “steps into the shoes” of the insured to pursue a claim against the tortfeasor.

What Is Not An Accident?

August 14, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance attorneys and those in Fort Worth, Dallas, North Richland Hills, Bedford, Hurst, Grapevine, and other places in Texas will find unusual claims being made every once and a while. Here is one that seems kind of strange.

The case is an opinion issued in 1997, by the Texas Supreme Court. The style of the case is, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company v. Robert Griffin.

This was a declaratory judgment action. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, James Royal III, in a suit brought by Robert Griffin. The trial court granted summary judgment for Farmers. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Farmers had a duty to defend Royal but not to indemnify him. This Court holds that, under the facts alleged against Royal, Farmers has no duty to defend Royal in the underlying suit. The Court further held that Farmers’ duty to indemnify Royal constituted a justiciable controversy properly reached and decided by the trial court. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Farmers.

Do Auto Insurance Policies Pay Punitive Damages

August 12, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie lawyers and those in Irving, Fort Worth, Dallas, and the surrounding areas need to know what auto insurance policies pay on claims. If you sue someone for a wrong they have committed and the wrong is so bad as to allow for the recovery of punitive damages, will an auto insurance policy pay the punitive damages?

A 1989, El Paso Court of Appeals case gives some guidance regarding the payment of punitive damages and is still good law. The style of the case is, Emigdia C. Manriquez et al. v. Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas.

Here is some background:

What Is A Person’s Primary Residence

August 11, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie lawyers and those in Dallas, Fort Worth, and the DFW area need to be aware of this case if they handle insurance cases.

The case is out of the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The opinion was issued in July, 2012. The style of the case is, “State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v.Matthew Lange” (and others parties involved).

Here are some facts upon which summary judgment was granted in favor of State Farm:

Property Damage

August 9, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance attorneys and those in Springtown, Graford, Millsap, Mineral Wells, Aledo, and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties need to be aware of this Texas Supreme Court case.

The opinion was issued in June 2012. The style of the case is, Evanston Insurance Company v. Legacy of Life, Inc.

The case came to the Texas Supreme Court on two certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The certified questions arise from a suit filed by a daughter against an organ donation charity when she discovered that the charity–contrary to an earlier representation to her–would allegedly profit from harvesting her deceased mother’s tissues. The charity requested a defense from its insurer and the insurer denied a defense. The insurer’s subsequent suit against the charity resulted. One of those issues will be dealt with here.

Bodily Injury

August 7, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie insurance law attorneys and those in Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, Dallas, De Soto, and other places in Dallas County would want to now about this Texas Supreme Court case.

The opinion was issued in June 2012. The style of the case is, Evanston Insurance Company v. Legacy of Life, Inc.

The case came to the Texas Supreme Court on two certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The certified questions arise from a suit filed by a daughter against an organ donation charity when she discovered that the charity–contrary to an earlier representation to her–would allegedly profit from harvesting her deceased mother’s tissues. The charity requested a defense from its insurer and the insurer denied a defense. The insurer’s subsequent suit against the charity resulted. One of those issues will be dealt with here.

“Temporary Substitute” In Auto Policy

August 5, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie attorneys and those in Fort Worth, Colleyville, Grapevine, Keller, Saginaw, Lake Worth, Benbrook, and other places in Tarrant County need to know how the courts interpret language in auto policies.

The El Paso Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1995, that dealt with how the courts looked at what a “temporary substitute” auto was in an auto policy. The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ismael Cobos, Sr., Ismael Cobos, Jr., and Johnny Ray Riley. Here is some background.

Junior was involved in an automobile collision with Riley while driving a truck owned by Senior’s employer. The trial court found Junior covered under the Cobos family insurance policy because the truck was not furnished for Senior’s regular use and because the truck was a substitute vehicle at the time of the accident as defined in the insurance contract per the facts of the case.

Auto Policy And Additional Vehicle

August 4, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie lawyers and those in Mesquite, Garland, De Soto, Cedar Hill, Dallas, and other places in Dallas County need to understand how the courts interpret various insurance policies.

Here is a 1996, case out of the Eastland Court of Appeals that sheds some light on the topic of interpreting auto insurance policies. The style of the case is Gilberto Guerra, Jr. and Mary Massey Guerra v. Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company.

This is a case wherein the trial court granted summary judgement for the Sentry Insurance. The question on appeal was whether the insurance policy provided liability coverage on an “additional vehicle” which was acquired by the policyholder (and which was involved in an accident within 30 days of its acquisition) when notice was not given to the insurance company within 30 days after the policyholder became the owner of the automobile.

Need An Insurance Attorney To Interpret An Insurance Policy

August 2, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Weatherford insurance attorneys and those in Mineral Wells, Graford, Cool, Springtown and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto County need to know how courts interpret insurance policy disputes.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, issued an opinion in June 2012, dealing with this issue. The style of the case is, Texas Renegade Construction Company, Inc. v. Hartford Lloyd’s Insurance Company.

This is a case where the court granted the insurance companies motion for summary judgment. The case is a coverage dispute based on the policy language and the facts of the claim. Here are some of the basic facts:

Delay In Paying Claim – When Does It Happen?

July 31, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Fort Worth insurance attorneys and those in Arlington, Burleson, Benbrook, Grapevine, Saginaw, Lake Worth, Crowley, and other places in Tarrant County need to know when an insurance company can be held liable for a delay in paying a claim.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in 2004, that deals with this issue. The style of the case is, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company v. Mex-Tex, Inc. Here are some of the facts:

Following a May 25, 1999 hail storm in Amarillo declared by the Texas Department of Insurance to be a weather-related “catastrophe for the purpose of claims processing”, Mex-Tex, Inc. notified its property insurer, Republic Underwriters Insurance Co., of damage to the roof of Signature Mall, a retail shopping center that Mex-Tex owned. Mex-Tex claimed that the roof had been destroyed and should be replaced. Republic immediately investigated the claim but disputed the amount of damage attributable to hail. The roof had leaked for a long time, and months before the storm Mex-Tex had obtained estimates to replace it. While Republic was still investigating the claim, it learned that Mex-Tex had retained a contractor to go ahead, without waiting on Republic, and replace the roof at a cost of $179,000 with one of the same kind, but which would be fixed to the building mechanically rather than by ballast as the old roof had been. Republic’s first response was to offer what it believed was the cost to repair the minimal hail damage, $22,000, as what it termed “partial payment” of Mex-Tex’s claim, but when Mex-Tex rejected that offer, Republic sent Mex-Tex a check on August 20, 1999, including $145,460, an amount representing what Republic’s engineer had determined was the cost of replacing the mall’s roof with an identical one, attached by ballast.