Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

Weatherford Attorneys and those in Springtown, Aledo, Azle, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Brock, Millsap, Cool, Mineral Wells, and other places in Parker County need to know how the courts look at and determine whether or not someone is a “permissive driver” under an insurance policy.

The Eastland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 2006, that looked at this issue. The style of the case is, Gary Arkinson v. Nancy Snodgrass and Texas Farm Bureau Insurance. Here is some background:

Gary Atkinson sued Nancy Snodgrass and Texas Farm Bureau Insurance to recover damages he sustained in a motor vehicle accident with Ted Horn. Atkinson alleged that Snodgrass negligently entrusted a vehicle to Horn and that Farm Bureau was responsible for a default judgment that he had taken against Horn. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Snodgrass and Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Atkinson’s claims against them.Snodgrass asked Horn to repair her pickup’s transmission. She drove the pickup to Horn’s residence and left it with the keys. Horn eventually returned the pickup to Snodgrass and represented that the transmission had been repaired. Snodgrass test-drove the pickup and discovered that it still did not shift properly. She told Horn that this was unacceptable and that she wanted her pickup repaired. Horn drove the pickup back to his house. Two days later, Horn and his daughter drove the pickup to Lake Brownwood — approximately forty-five miles from his house — and were involved in an accident with Atkinson.

Weatherford attorneys and those in Springtown, Aledo, Azle, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Brock, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, and even out in Grafford need to be sure what an “accidental loss” is under an insurance policy.

The Austin Court of Appeals dealt specifically with this issue in a 1997 opinion. The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joel Kelly. The issue in this case is whether or not a car that was confiscated by authorities that had previously been stolen is a “accidental loss” under the policy at issue.

Here is some background:

Weatherford lawyers and those in Springtown, Aledo, Azle, Mineral Wells, Millsap, Brock, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, and even out in Grafford need to be sure what a “covered auto” is under an insurance policy.

The Austin Court of Appeals dealt specifically with this issue in a 1997 opinion. The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joel Kelly. The issue in this case is whether or not a car that was previously stolen is a “covered auto” under the policy at issue.

Here is some background: