A case decided in Fort Worth, Texas on June 11, 2009, is important to understand. The result of this case is the same in Weatherford, Grand Prairie, Arlington, or Dallas.

The style of this case is Garry Jenkins v. State and County Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The facts in this case are undisputed. Garry Jenkins foot was crushed when a tank skid fell off a truck driven by Mark Lemmon. The accident happened when Mark applied the brakes too quickly, causing the skid to break free and fall on Garry’s foot. Both Garry and Mark were working as independent contractors for L & G Pipe. L & G Pipe was owned by two people, Deborah Grisamer and Richard Lemmon.

At the time of the accident, State and County Mutual Fire Insurance Company had a policy of insurance with Deborah as the named insured. The policy was in effect on the date of the accident and the policy listed the truck as a “covered auto.” The wording in the policy is important in this case and provided as follows:

The people living in Weatherford, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, or Fort Worth, is protected by the laws in Texas, against businesses that try to take advantage of them. These laws are found in the Texas Business & Commerce Code, Section 17.

To be eligible for protection under the DTPA, all you have do is prove your status as a consumer. Proving consumer status under the DTPA requires the plaintiff to prove it was a person or entity listed in Texas Business & Commerce Code, Section 17.45(4) that sought or acquired goods or services by purchase or lease. In determining the plaintiff’s consumer status, the focus is on the plaintiff’s relationship to the transaction, not on the plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff does not need to prove it is in privity of contract with the defendant to have standing as a consumer. Instead of privity, the plaintiff is required to show that the defendant was “connected with” the transaction.

This Blog primarily deals with issues related to different forms of insurance issues. The importance of the DTPA is that most violations of the Texas Insurance Code are also violations of the DTPA and subject to the penalties of both sets of laws regulating the matters. Relevant Insurance Code Sections are, 541.003, and 541.051 thru 541.061.

A lot of homeowners insurance policies in Texas have “appraisal” clauses written into them. So whether you live in Weatherford, Texas, or in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth or Dallas, if you have homeowners insurance you need to be aware of these appraisal paragraphs.

An appraisal paragraph is of benefit to the insurance company. That is why they put it into the insurance policy. When the homeowner and the insurance company cannot reach an agreement on the amount of money that should be paid on a claim, the insurance company will try to invoke the appraisal clause in the insurance contract. Appraisal happens when the insurance company knows they owe the homeowner money, but there is a dispute as to how much money is owed.

The United States District Court, Southern Division, recently handled a case where the issue was whether the homeowner properly defeated the insurance company trying to invoke the appraisal process. The style of the case is, Hector Sanchez v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford and Irene Bernardo. The courts’ opinion was handed down on January 27, 2010.

It is always smart to purchase uninsured motorist benefits coverage because of the number of people driving around with no insurance or insufficient insurance to cover a lot of losses that occur. This is particularly true in the Grand Prairie, Arlington, and Dallas – Fort Worth areas of Texas.

Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage is required to be provided to drivers purchasing auto coverage in Texas. This requirement is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1952.101.

The Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, recently ruled in a case involving underinsured coverage benefits. The style of the case is Myrtis Williams v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. This case was decided on February 5, 2010.

People living in Grand Prairie, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Weatherford, or any where in Texas or the nation have a hard time understanding how their health insurance works when it comes to paying medical providers. This is particularly true with the “out of network” medical providers involved in a health claim.

The Palm Beach Post recently published an article. The article addressed the possibility that a class action lawsuit was going to get traction against some of the larger medical insurance companies. The Palm Beach Post article is titled “Lawsuits Filed Against Blue Cross Claims Reimbursement Rates Kept “Artificially” Low”.

The first line in the article starts out; “Ever wonder why your insurance company claims a procedure that cost you dearly could be gotten for a fraction of the price you paid?” An example of this is given in the article where a Palm Springs resident was charged $1,210 for an MRI. Blue Cross said the cost should have been $419. Since he had not met his deductible, it would not cover the MRI. Further, it would not allow him to claim the full amount toward his deductible.

Punative damages and “exemplary” damages are essentially the same thing in Texas. The way exemplary damages works in Texas is the same regardless of whether you live in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Dallas, or Weatherford.

The Texas Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas, recently dealt with the issue of how exemplary damages are handled when the claim made is a claim against a person’s own insurance carrier for uninsured motorist benefits. This case was decided on February 4, 2010. The style of the case is, Sandra Gervais Laine, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.

In this case Laine’s mother was killed in an auto accident. The other driver was at fault and was intoxicated. Laine made a claim against Farmers Insurance Exchange for benefits under her uninsured motorist benefits portion of the auto policy. Farmers paid the uninsured benefits limit of $250,000. She then made a claim against her umbrella policy which provided the same benefits as the auto policy except for a higher amount. The limit under the umbrella policy was $1,000,000.

Most insurance company’s have their main offices located outside of Texas. If you live in Weatherford, Texas, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or the Dallas – Fort Worth area, and you sue an insurance company, how do you know you won’t have to travel to Delaware or some other state to fight the lawsuit?

The United State District Court, Southern District, Houston Division, recently had a case dealing with this issue. The case decision was handed down on January 26, 2010, and was styled, Houston Baptist University, v. Ace American Insurance Company and York Claims Service, Inc.

Houston Baptist University (HBU) had a policy of insurance with Ace American Insurance Company (Ace). HBU suffered losses as the result of Hurricane Ike hitting the Houston area and made a claim against Ace. Ace assigned York Claims Service, Inc. (York) to adjust and inspect the claim. HBU and Ace could not reach an agreement on the value of the claim and HBU filed a lawsuit against Ace and York. The insurance policy had a policy provision that read: Any dispute arising under this policy shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

A decision in a Dallas, Texas, case was handed down on January 22, 2010. The results should have been the same in Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Arlington, or Weatherford. This case was decided by the United States District Court, Northern District, Dallas Division.

The style of the case is Gemini Insurance Company v. Trident Roofing Company, L.L.C. The lawsuit arises from an incident where the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas and Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church hired Trident Roofing Company, L.L.C., to perform roofing work on a Church building. In doing the roof work, Trident performed “torch down roofing”. “Torch down roofing” is defined in the insurance policy as “the use of any roofing system that requires the applying of a direct flame (torch) to asphalt/modified bitumen or in the application of any other roofing material.” The Church sued Trident after a fire started while Trident was using this roofing method.

Trident looked to their insurance policy with Gemini Insurance Company and demanded that Geminin protect them in the lawsuit including paying for defense costs and indemnity costs. Gemini denied coverage citing an exclusion in the insurance contract for work performed using “torch down roofing”. The specific language in the policy states: “It is agreed no coverage is afforded for any liability or claim that arise(s) out of, is related to, or connected with the following: TORCH DOWN ROOFING.”

If a Grand Prairie resident buys a new home, 95% of the time he is also going to be required to purchase a title insurance policy. This would be the same for a resident of Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, or Weatherford.

The Texas Supreme Court decided a case in 1994 that is relavent to home buyers and purchasers of title insurance policies. The case is styled, Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Jerry E. McDaniel and Christina W. McDaniel.

This case involves a claim against Chicago Title Insurance Company for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The McDaniels purchased a title insurance policy issued by Chicago Title. The policy guaranteed the McDaniels had good and indefeasible title to the estate or interest in land described in the policy, which was the home they had purchased. This was in 1983.

Insurance policies have different forms of coverage depending on what it is that the policyholder purchases. In Texas, a homeowners policy purchased in Grand Praire, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, or Weatherford, is going to have the same basic coverage. Parts of this coverage is for losses such as water damage, hail, fire, wind, and others. But most homeowners insurance policies also have liability coverage.

Liability coverage is coverage that protects and pays on behalf of the policyholder for injuries to others caused by the negligent acts of the policyholder. The normal homeowners policy is not going to pay or protect from acts that are voluntary or committed on purpose.

A lawsuit litigating this issue was decided by a Texas Appeals Court in Houston. The name on the case is State Farm Lloyds v. Henderson, et al. In this case, the underlying facts were that Henderson, after drinking a large amount of alcohol, punched a guy named Burnley in the face causing severe bruises and cuts and the loss of one of Burnley’s teeth. Henderson was sued by Burnley. State Farm Lloyds was obligated to defend if the injuries sustained by Burnley were the result of an accident. If the injuries to Burnley were intentionally or voluntarily caused by Henderson, then State Farm did not have an obligation to defend Henderson, or to pay for any of the damages suffered by Burnley.

Contact Information