Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Limitations Periods In Texas For Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist Coverage

March 12, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield residents and residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Weatherford who have uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on their automobile insurance policy should fill good about a case decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1974. The case is styled, Raul C. Franco et ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company.

The facts of this case are fairly short and simple. Raul C. Franco and his family (Franco) had uninsured motorist benefits in an insurance policy they carried with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). An accident occurred wherein Franco suffered injuries and his daughter was killed. The accident was caused by the negligence of an uninsured driver. Franco made a claim for benefits from Allstate and eventually three years later sued Allstate.

Allstate denied the claim and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Allstate asserted that a claim for the wrongful death of his daughter and the claim for his injuries, were both governed by a two year statute of limitations. Allstate claimed that because the two years had passed, it was too late for Franco to be seeking recovery.

Texas Case With Lots Of Insurance Law

March 11, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Grand Prairie residents beware; Weatherford residents beware; Arlington, Mansfield, Dallas, Fort Worth residents beware. Here is a case that makes you angry at the insurance company when you get into the details of how this person was treated by her insurance company and those associated with them.

The case is kinda old, decided in 2001. The style of the case is long, Lois Jones v. Ray Insurance Agency a/k/a Azteca Insurance and / or Alamo Insurance, and Collision Clinic, Inc., State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Harbor Insurance Managers. It was decided by the Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

The facts of the case are long, but not really complicated. Lois Jones purchased a new 1998 Pontiac and purchased a State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Company insurance policy (State & County). This policy was purchased from the agent, Ray Insurance Agency a/k/a Azteca Insurance and / or Alamo Insurance (Ray). The policy administrator was Harbor Insurance Managers (Harbor). When purchasing the policy, Jones informed the agent that her sister lived with her, and was advised by the agent, that would not be a problem, and that as long as she paid her premiums on time she would have insurance. The policy with State & County excludes coverage for anyone residing with Jones age fourteen or over unless listed. Ms. Jones paid the November and December premium payments. The policy was to be effective from November 7, 1997 (the date of purchase) thru May 7, 1998.

Succesful Claim Against Home Builder In Texas

March 10, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The topic of this piece is a case that arose out of Mansfield, Texas. The case could have just as easily arisen in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, or out in Weatherford.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram published a story about a claim against a home builder for the builders faulty construction work.

Even when a claim is against a home builder for mistakes in the construction of the home, often times the same claim can be made against the insurance company that insures the home. The advantage of claiming against the home owners insurance is to, hopefully, get the matter resolved quickly rather than get involved in an extensive and long drawn-out court battle with the builder. Of course, sometimes it is just the opposite.

Do Texas Laws Govern All Texas Policies

March 9, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

An important issue for any resident of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, or even a resident of a smaller community such as Weatherford is: What happens if I get into an insurance dispute with my insurance company? What laws apply in fighting with the insurance company?

This question is atleast partially answered by a section of the Texas Insurance Code. Article 21.42 of the Texas Insurance Code is titled, Texas Laws Govern Policies. It says, “Any contract of insurance payable to any citizen or inhabitant of this State by any insurance company or corporation doing business within this State shall be held to be a contract made and entered into under and by virtue of the laws of this State relating to insurance, and governed therby, notwithstanding such policy or contract of insurance may provide that the contract was executed and the premiums and policy (in case it becomes a demand) should be payable without this State, or at the home office of the company or corporation issuing the same”.

Wow, no wonder attorneys are needed to decipher the law!

Rate Hikes Result In Lawsuit

March 8, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

It does not matter where in the State of Texas that you live. Whether you are in a small community like Weatherford or in the middle of the Dallas, Fort Worth, area, in cities like Arlington or Grand Prairie, you will see rate increases in your health insurance.

In the state of California, a consumer group filed a lawsuit on March 1, 2010. This was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. The article is found in the health care section of the paper and is titled “Anthem Blue Cross Sued Over Rate Increases”. The lawsuit alleges that Anthem Blue Cross, by raising rates, was forcing policy holders to move into other policies with higher deductibles and lower benefits.

The consumer group, called Consumer Watchdog, accuses Anthem of violating state law by failing to offer policy holders comparable coverage and minimized rate hikes after the company directs customers to alternative plans when closing existing plans. One lady in the lawsuit, said the company offered her the option of switching to a policy with a higher deductible and skimpier benefits by a specific deadline, but also told her she could stay in her current policy. The company then notified her of the enormous premium increases in her plan after the deadline for switching had passed.

Health Insurance Exclusions

March 7, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

All over the Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie areas and even out in Weatherford in Parker County, are immigrants. What many people fail to understand because of all the media coverage on illegal immigration in the United States, is that there is a large and growing number of legal immigrants in our country.

A newspaper in Massachusetts recently ran an article about health insurance and legal immigrants. The newspaper was The Boston Globe. The title of the article is “Immigrants Sue State Over Exclusion From Health Care”.

The State of Massachusetts, prior to 2006 provided health care to legal immigrants. According to the article, in an effort to save money, the legislature voted to eliminate coverage to about 26,000 immigrants. About a third of the money cuts were restored and the immigrants were given a stripped down health care plan with significantly higher copayments for medications and other treatments.

An Understanding Of How Exclusions Work In An Insurance Policy

March 6, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance policy holders in Arlington, Grand Praire, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or Dallas, will all notice something called “Exclusions” in their policies. Maybe most people don’t look at their insurance policy’s until they have a reason to make a claim, but when they do they may read something they do not like. This something will usually be in the section of the policy titled “Exclusions.”

When Courts in Texas are called upon to read and interpret an insurance policy, the rule is, they are going to look at and interpret exclusions very narrowly. Their construction of the policy provisions are going to be very liberal with the aim being to favor coverage for the insured policy holder.

The Texas Supreme Court case, Puckett v. United States Fire Insurance Company, was decided in 1984, and states that insurance policies are strictly construed in favor of the insured to avoid excluding coverage. A historically long line of cases says that exceptions or limitations (exclusions) on liability are strictly construed against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. Here are a few of those Texas Supreme Court cases, National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Hudson Energy Company, decided in 1991. Barnett v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, decided in 1987. A 1982 case, Blaylock v. American Guarantee Bank Liability Insurance Company. Glover v. National Insurance Underwriter, was decided in 1977. And here is one, Brown v. Palatine Insurance Company, decided in 1896.

Interpreting An Insurance Policy In Texas

March 5, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

When a Court in Texas makes a ruling on an insurance issue in Texas, that ruling has the same effect on Texas residents regardless of where they live in the State. Living in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, or out in Weatherford or anywhere else in the State, would all be the same.

What happens if an insurance contract is ambiguous? Ambiguous is when an insurance policy is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. When an insurance policy is ambiguous the Courts in Texas have ruled that the interpretation of the policy that is most favorable to providing coverage will be adopted, as a matter of law. The reasoning for this is discussed in a line of Texas Supreme Court cases. A few of these cases are: (1) Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company v. McKee, decided in 1997, (2) State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Vaughan, decided in 1998, (3) Kelly Associates., Ltd. v. Aetna Casualty & Surity Company, decided in 1984.

The above cases say that it is for the Judge of the Court to decide if a reading of the insurance policy is ambiguous. If the policy is found to be subject to more than one interpretation, then the Court “must” rule in favor of coverage being provided under the policy. The intention of the insurance company in drafting the policy does not matter.

Excluded Drivers In Texas

February 26, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

There are lots of people in the Fort Worth, Dallas, Grand Prairie, Arlington, and Weatherford, areas of Texas who have problems getting affordable insurance. The reasons can be many, examples are, they are young, too many tickets, too many wrecks, a DWI conviction, license suspension issues, and medical conditions.

What happens if you have insurance on your car but when you bought the insurance you signed a document called a “named driver exclusion” on your spouse because the insurance company would not cover her because she suffered from epileptic seizures. That is what happened in the case, Janie Zamora, Pete Zamora, Jesus Toe, and Gracie Vela v. Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company. This case was decided by the Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The facts are, on December 2, 1993, Gracie Vela (wife of Jesus Toe) was operating Jesus’ automobile when she was involved in an accident with Pete and Janie Zamora. At the time of the accident, Gracie was named as an excluded driver in Toe’s policy with Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company. The Zamora’s sued Gracie for her negligence and Jesus for negligently entrusting his car to Gracie. Dairyland denied coverage to Gracie and Jesus based on the named driver exclusion in the policy.

Permission? To Operate The Vehicle

February 25, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

A Dallas Appeals Court upheld a lower Court ruling in an interesting case. The ruling applies to the same facts anywhere in Texas, including, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or Weatherford.

This case is valid law today but was decided in 1989. The fact pattern is unique. The style of the case is United States Fire Insurance Company v. United Service Automobile Association.

The underlying liability lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred when an Anna Milliken was riding as a passenger, with a Douglas Martin, being the driver. The car Douglas was driving was owned by his father and was covered by the United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire) policy. Anna’s insurance was United Service Automobile Association. Douglas testified about some swerving and horseplay prior to the accident. Anna testified that Douglas was zigzagging the wheel back and forth and that she grabbed the wheel on two occasions prior to the accident. She was doing this to play back with Douglas. The first time she did this, Douglas did not object, and the second time was when the accident occurred causing serious injury to Douglas. Douglas sued Anna for his injuries.