Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Late Payment Of Claims

January 26, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insureds in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Grapevine, Saginaw, Rhome, Lake Worth, Burleson, and other places in Texas have very little knowledge of the remedies available to them when their insurance company refuses to defend them in a law suit. One of those remedies might surprise them.

This surprise can be found in a case styled, Luxury Living, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company. This is a 2003, case heard by a Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas. Here are some of the facts:

Luxury Living, Inc., a home builder. was sued by a homeowner alleging defects in construction that resulted in physical injury to the home. Mid-Continent refused to defend Luxury Living on the ground that the claim asserted by the third-party homeowner was not covered by the insured’s commercial liability policy. The insured, Luxury Living, filed this action seeking declaratory judgment that the insurer, Mid-Continent, has a duty to defend the insured and for damages, including reimbursement of the insured’s defense costs to date, 18% statutory penalty on those costs for wrongful denial of the claim, and attorney fees to date. The insurer responded that because the homeowner’s claims were not covered by the policy, the duty to defend was not triggered. Additionally, the insurer asserted policy exclusions that preclude coverage for damages arising out of installation of the Exterior Insulation Finish System (“EIFS”). Finally, the insurer argued that statutory penalties do not apply to third-party claims. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Late Payment Of Claims

January 24, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

When does someone in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Burleson, Crowley, Lake Worth, Benbrook, Alvarado, Keene, Joshua, or anywhere else in Texas, know that the insurance company is taking too long to pay the claim?

There is no easy answer to the question. The laws related to the time frame for payment of claims are found in the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. A reading of these laws is confusing. Even an experienced Insurance Law Attorney will have to read the law, look at the facts in the case then reread the law and see how it applies to the facts of the case. A big part of this law is the penalty the insurance company is subject to having to pay for violations of the law. So how is this penalty calculated?

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals decided a case in 2008, that provides some guidance. The case is styled, GuideOne Lloyd’s Insurance Company v. First Baptist Church of Bedford. Here are some relevant background facts:

Like Kind And Quality

January 22, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Persons who are insured in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, Dallas, De Soto, Duncanville, Cedar Hill, and other places in Texas are probably unsure what the phrase “like kind and quality” means in an insurance contract. Here is a case that may help to understand.

This is a Texas Supreme Court case that was decided in 2004. The style of the case is, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company v. Mex-Tex, Inc. Here are some relevant background facts in the case:

The roof atop a shopping mall was damaged by a hail storm. Before the insurance company agreed to pay for the replacement, the insured, owner of the mall, retained a roofer on a priority basis to replace the roof in order to avoid further injury to the tenants from future rains at a total cost of $179,000. Republic estimated the cost of replacing the roof with an identical make to be $145,460 and tendered that amount. The new roof was substantially similar in kind and quality to the old one, but the additional cost was due to the method of the roof’s attachment to the building and the high priority of the job. Republic refused to pay the balance of the claim and the insured sued. Tex-Mex sought to recover the balance of the amount owed plus a statutory 18% penalty on the entire claim. Republic argued that the penalty, if any, should be assessed only on the disputed amount, rather than on the entire claim. The trial court entered the judgment in favor of Tex-Mex and Republic appealed. The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the policy did not require the replacement roof to be identical and that an insurer’s tender of the amount it believed was owed on a claim did not stop the accrual of Texas Insurance Code 542.060 penalties, or prejudgment interest, on what was later judicially determined to be the full amount of the claim. This Texas Supreme Court granted review of the case.

When Are Family Members Excluded From Insurance Claims?

January 21, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

People with insurance policies in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, Saginaw, Keller, Grapevine, Mesquite, or anywhere else in Texas would be surprised to learn that there are situations where family members are excluded from insurance claims. Here is one example of that.

The case is styled Rumley v. Allstate Indemnity Company. The opinion was issued by the Beaumont Court of Appeals in 1996. Here are some facts:

Joyce Rumley (“Wife”) sustained personal injuries in a one car vehicle accident in which her husband, Wilburn Rumley, was the driver. Mrs. Rumley filed a claim for benefits under their insurer, Allstate. Allstate paid Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits but refused to pay liability because the policy contained a family member exclusion. At the time, the Texas Supreme Court had granted writ of error but had not yet issued an opinion in National County Mutual Insurance Company v. Johnson. In that decision, the Texas Supreme Court invalidated the family member exclusion. Wife sued Allstate and Ted Pate, a senior staff claims representative for Allstate, for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Insurance Code and violations of the Texas DTPA.

Suing On A Life Insurance Policy, Who Can Do It?

January 19, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

A natural question for someone in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, or anywhere else in Texas to wonder about. Can the policyholder sue? Can the beneficiary sue? Can an estate administrator sue? The answer is one of those that depends on the facts and circumstances. Here is a case that gives some guidance.

The case is out of the San Antonio Court of Appeals and the opinion was issued in 1996. The style of the case is Mendoza v. American National Life Insurance Company. Here are the facts:

Jerry Mendoza purchased a $25,000 life insurance policy from American National on August 1, 1991. Carrion was a named beneficiary of the policy. The October premium was not paid. The policy provided for a 31 day grace period. On November 1, 1991, the last day of the grace period, American National’s district manager, Sitka, verbally agreed to extend the grace period until November 4, 1991. The policy, however, specifically provided that only American National’s president, vice-president or secretary had the authority to extend this time period. Jerry Mendoza died in an automobile accident on November 3, 1991. The premium was never paid. In a prior appeal, this court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of American National on Mendoza’s breach of contract, negligence and bad faith claims. This appeal concerns the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on Mendoza’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Insurance Code and DTPA violations.

Insurance Agent Representations

January 17, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance Law Attorneys and Lawyers in Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, and other places in Texas know the claims that can be made against an insurance company that treats one of its insureds in an unlawful manner. These same lawyers should also know the claims to make against insurance agents that make misrepresentations to their insureds when selling a policy of insurance.

The question today is: Can an agent be held liable for something he does not say? The answer is: It depends. Here is a case that gives some guidance.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1998, in the case styled, Moore v. Whitney-Vaky Agency. Here are some facts:

Hire An Attorney When The Insurance Company Refuses To Defend

January 15, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insureds in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Willow Park, Hudson Oaks, Springtown, Millsap, Brock, and all other places in Parker County have to protect themselves immediately by seeing an Insurance Law Attorney when their insurance company refuses to defend them in a lawsuit.

A 1998, Dallas Court of Appeals case serves as an example of what happens when someone delays in hiring an attorney. The style of the case is, Greenberg, et al v. Cigna Lloyds Insurance Company. Here are some facts:

Greenburg was the independent executor as well as the trustee for his brother’s children. The children eventually brought suit against Greenberg in Probate Court alleging among other things that Greenberg was liable for improper self dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. After receiving notice of the suit, Greenberg contacted two insurance companies that had secured insurance policies, including commercial general liability policies. Greenberg and his sons were told that there was no coverage under the policies. Greenberg hired an attorney to represent him in the probate suit. Judgment was rendered against him. Later, he entered into a compromise settlement agreement under which Greenberg agreed to pay $1.1 million. The trial in the underlying probate case began on September 25, 1989. In September 1994, Greenberg filed suit against Cigna as well as other insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060, and the DTPA, and intentional misrepresentation. Cigna filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted on the basis of a limitations defense. Greenberg then filed this appeal.

Life Insurance Claims

January 14, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, and other areas in the State of Texas would want to understand what happens when a policy payment is missed. The following case is one where the policy ended up lapsing. An experienced Insurance Law Attorney may have been able to get a different result.

The case is State Farm Life Insurance Company v. Beaston. The case decided in 1995, by the Texas Supreme Court. Here is some background.

Beaston purchased a graded premium whole life policy from State Farm. The premium on the policy was due on 12/28/93. The thirty-one day grace period expired on 1/28/94. Three days after the expiration of the grace period, Beaston died in an automobile accident. State Farm refused to pay benefits because coverage had expired. Beaston’s wife, the beneficiary, brought suit alleging that the policy remained in force because of its dividend-at-death provision. The trial court found the policy ambiguous and instructed a verdict in favor of Beaston with respect to coverage.

Insurance Company Refusing Claim

January 12, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

People in Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Grapevine, and other places in the DFW metroplex would want to know why an insurance company refuses a claim and what the consequences are. The following case may give some insight.

This is a 1999, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case styled, “Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Foreman.” Here are some facts:

Joyce Foreman was involved in a car accident with anther driver, Karl Buehner. Foreman’s auto policy included $250,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. Foreman settled with Buehner’s insurance carrier for approximately $20,000. It is disputed whether or not Mr. Foreman spoke with the Mid-Century agent before the settlement. Because of extensive medical bills, the Foreman’s filed an uninsured motorist claim with Mid-Century. Fisher, a Mid-Century adjuster, mailed an acknowledgement and request for information. Fisher spoke with Mr. Foreman who told her that they had hired a lawyer. Fisher stopped all contact with the Foremans.

Life Insurance Misrepresentation

January 10, 2012 | Mark S. Humphreys

People in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Willow Park, Brock, Millsap, Springtown, Cool, Peaster, and other places in Parker County might be interested in this life insurance case.

The case is a 1996, opinion issued by the Southern District of Texas. The style of the case is Bates v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company. Here are some facts.

Bates’ children sued Jackson National for proceeds of a life insurance policy issued to Bates. The children asserted causes of action for breach of contract, bad faith, Insurance Code violations and DTPA violations.