Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Health Insurance Company Doing Wrong

April 26, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

You live in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas and your health insurance company does you wrong; does it happen to others?

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram ran an article on April 19, that highlighted a health insurer based in North Richland Hills, Texas. This North Texas insurance company has had many complaints filed against it by its’ customers.

The title of the article is, “Health Insurer Based In North Richland Hills Facing Many Customer Complaints.” The article is written by Dianna Hunt.

Who Gets The Insurance Money?

April 25, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Let’s say a Grand Prairie business, or one in Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, or anywhere else in Texas, gets sued and a judgement is rendered against them. Does the sued business’ insurance company pay the money to their insured to handle or to the person who sued their insured to resolve the judgement?

This was the issue in a lawsuit recently ruled on by The Honorable Senior District Judge, A. Joe Fish. This case, was decided on April 5, 2010, in the United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. The style of the case is, Mark Rotella and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company.

Mark Rotella and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes (Benchmark) were sued by Joan Cutting (Cutting) for numerous reasons including, construction defects in her home, fraudulent billing practices, and breach of contract. Cutting prevailed in the underlying suit and obtained a judgement for $2,671,187.26 in actual and treble damages, $336,342.59 in attorneys’ fees, and $191,189.95 in pre-judgement interest, post-judgement interest, and costs. The immediate lawsuit resulted between Benchmark and Mid-Continent Casualty Company (Casualty) over the obligations of Casualty under the policy of insurance they had with Benchmark.

A “What Happened” Case

April 24, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Attention residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, Weatherford, and everywhere else in Texas. Sometimes there is a case that makes you ask, “What happened”.

A case that was decided in by the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), on March 30, 2010, makes you ask, “What happened?” This case decision was written by Justice, Jefferey V. Brown, and is styled, Joe M. Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, LLC, and Ernest Bustos v. Terra Nova Insurance Company, LTD., Guaranty National Insurance Company, The Burlington Insurance Company, and United National Insurance Company.

In this case, Joe M. Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, LLC, and Ernest Bustos purchased pay telephones from American Telecommunications Company, Inc. (ATC). When buying the telephones, ATC allegedly represented that it would buy back the phones after 36 months or at a reduced price before 36 months if the phones were unsatisfactory. ATC also allegedly represented that it had insured the value of the phones if it was unable to repurchase them. ATC allegedly marketed that Northern & Western Insurance Company would provide primary insurance for its “buy back program,” and would provide excess insurance for the program. When requests were submitted for ATC to buy back the phones, ATC did not honor the requests. When the plaintiffs tried to collect on the insurance policies the claims were denied.

Insurance Appraisal Clauses In Texas

April 22, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lightning strikes a home in Grand Prairie, or Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or out in Weatherford. The lightning damages electronic equipment. The homeowner calls his insurance company to make a claim. Then the insurance company invokes an appraisal clause in the insurance contract. What does this mean?

This is what happened in the case, Steven Woodward, et al, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. This case was decided by the United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division on March 26, 2010. The Judge was the Honorable, A. Joe Fish. In this lawsuit, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) filed papers with the Court for an order to be issued to compel appraisal and to stay the Court actions in this matter pending the completion of appraisal. Judge Fish granted the motion and ordered the parties to complete the appraisal process.

In this case, the appraisal clause required each side to select a competent, independent appraiser, notify the other side who had been chosen and if the appraisers did not agree to choose an umpire to settle the matter.

Legal Concerns For Policy Coverage

April 20, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

A good friend of yours is a developer in Grand Prairie, or maybe Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford. He develops a property with a lake and the lake was not properly designed. This improper design causes damage to homes around the lake and the homeowners sue your friend, the developer. Will his insurance defend him?

The above situation is kinda what happened in the case, Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Academy Development, Inc., et al. This case decision was handed down on March 24, 2010, by the Federal District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, by Judge Gray H. Miller. In this case, Academy Development, Inc., Chelsea Harbour, Ltd., Legend Classic Homes, Ltd., and Legend Home Corporation (collectively “Academy”) were sued on or about May 23, 2005 by a group of plaintiff’s that purchased from the defendants in the Chelsea Harbour subdivision of Fort Bend County, Texas. This property was developed as a lake front community and nearly all of the homes were constructed on lots connected to one of the lakes in the community. The plaintiff’s allege that Academy knew at the time it sold the homes to the plaintiffs that the lake walls were failing and that water was leaking from the lakes onto the adjacent home sites. The plaintiffs further alleged that Academy did not disclose this information to them. As a result, the plaintiffs brought claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, statutory fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Academy.

The fight here was over whether or not Mid-Continent Casualty Company (Mid-Continent)had a duty defend Academy in this lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in this case amended their lawsuit papers at least eleven times. Mid-Continent agreed that they had a responsibility to defend Academy thru the eigth amendment but they said the wording of the allegations in the lawsuit papers changed enough that they no longer had a duty to defend Academy.

Commercial Policy Coverage Denied In Texas

April 18, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Commercial business owners in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, and other places in Texas need to know the coverage provided by the commercial insurance policies they purchase. A recent Court decision went against a commercial business that thought they had insurance to cover the loss they experienced.

The Fort Worth Division of the United States District Court, Northern Division, recently handed down a decision that would at the least be interesting to home builders. The decision was issed on April 1, 2010, and it was in favor of the insurance company. The Federal Judge is John McBryde.

The style of this Federal case is, David Lewis Builders, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company. In this case, David Lewis Builders, Inc. (Lewis) sued Mid-Continent Casualty Company (Mid-Continent) for a claim made against Lewis by Gary and Malisa Blake for whom Lewis had contracted to construct a house.

A Must Read For Texas HomeOwners

April 17, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

There are lots of older homes in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, and all through Texas. These homes need homeowners insurance coverage. That insurance coverage needs to be have proper limits in case a loss is suffered. The following is an example of what might happen it there are not proper limits.

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, handed down a decision on April 1, 2010, affirming a judgment against a homeowner and in favor of the homeowners insurance company. The style of the case is, William D. Bryce and Sarah R. Bryce v. Unitrin Preferred Insurance Company and Evans, Ewan & Brady Insurance Agency, Inc.

The Bryces’ home was built in 1889 and is located in a registered historic district. The Bryces purchased the house in 1983 for $210,000 and immediately invested approximately $242,000 in renovations, bringing the total purchase and renovation cost to approximately $452,000. In April 2006, a fire destroyed the Bryces’ home. As a result of the fire, Unitrin Preferred Insurance Company (Unitrin) paid the Bryces their full policy limits of $474,000 for the dwelling and $284,400 for the contents of the home. The problem here is that the home replacement value cost was approximately $1.7 million and the contents approximately $864,000. From the time of the purchase until some time after the fire, the Bryces used Evans, Ewan & Brady Insurance Agency, Inc. (EEB) as their insurance agent.

Insurance Companies Always Want To Be In Federal Court

April 15, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

How about a church in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Weatherford, Fort Worth, or anywhere else in Texas who needs to sue an insurance company? How do they stay out of Federal Court? Answer is the same whether it is a church or not: Find an experienced Insurance Law Attorney.

The United States District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, recently had a case like this. The case was partialy decided on March 11, 2010, by Judge, Ewing Werlein, Jr. The style of the case is, New Bethlehem Missionary, Baptist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company and Eugene M. Poldrack.

New Bethlehem Missionary, Baptist Church (Church) sued Church Mutual Insurance Company (Mutual) and Poldrack for various violations of Texas Insurance Code, the Prompt Payment of Claims Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mutual had filed papers requesting to invoke the insurance contract’s appraisal process. Church claimed that Mutual’s right to appraisal had been waived.

Interpreting A Commercial Insurance Policy Issued In Texas

April 14, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

What about a school district located in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or somewhere else in Texas? Does that make a difference when deciding how to interpret an insurance policy? The answer is no, but here is a case involving a commercial policy purchased by a school district contractor.

The United States District Court, Northern District, Dallas Division, recently had to decide whether a commercial policy purchased by contractors of the Quinlan Independent School District (QUID) were liable in a claim made by the QISD against one of its contractors. The style of the case is Employers Mutual Casualty Company et al. v. Northern Insurance Company. This case was decided on March 11, 2010, by Senior District Judge, A. Joe Fish.

Dates are relevant in this case. In April 1998, QISD hired DalMac Construction Company (DalMac) to be the general contractor in charge of constructing Ford High School. DalMac hired C. Watts as its “dirt work” subcontractor on the project. QISD took possession of the school in August 1999. Beginning immediately and continuing over the next several years, QISD experienced problems with the building and eventually brought suit against DalMac. In turn, DalMac brought suit against various subcontractors, including C. Watts. C. Watts tendered the defense of the lawsuit to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (Employers). Employers policies went into effect on November 1, 1999. Employers agreed to defend C. Watts in the lawsuit but did so under a reservation of rights. Employers conceded they may have some liability in the lawsuit but that Northern Insurance Company (Northern), which had a policy in effect from November 1, 1998, to November 1, 1999, also had liability under their policy.

A Texas Unbrella Policy

April 13, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most businesses in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford, are going to have insurance policies to cover losses. In addition to the regular liability policy they will also have an “umbrella” policy. An umbrella policy is an insurance policy that covers amounts above those covered under one or more other primary policies, and which does not pay until the losses exceed a certain sum. It is sometimes also called an excess insurance policy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ruled on a case on March 25, 2010, that dealt with an umbrella policy. The style of the case is, Delta Seaboard Well Serv’s Inc. v. American Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.

Delta Seaboard Well Serv’s, Inc. (Delta) is an oil and gas well serving company that plugs non-productive wells for operating companies. In 2003, Delta contracted with Fort Apache Energy, Inc. to plug a well. Sometime after plugging the well Fort Apache discovered that the gas pressure at the wellhead had not “bled off”, a fact finding that would have required Delta to cease its plugging operation. Fort Apache sued Delta for negligently plugging the hole when there was still recoverable reserves in the hole.