Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Life Insurance Policy Lapse In Texas

February 13, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Most people think that the idea of life insurance is good. It shows you are thinking of the people in your life who are left behind. Sometimes, life insurance is purchased for business reasons. People who live in Arlington, Grand Prairie, Weatherford, or a big metropolitan area such as Dallas and Fort Worth are all going to consider life insurance at some point in their lives.

What happens when the idea of purchasing life insurance becomes a reality and after having bought the coverage, payments are missed? The Texas Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio, decided this issue in 1962, and their decision is still good law for this question.

Merced Cantu et ux., v. Southern Life & Health Insurance Company, is a case that says, “It is not necessary for the insurance company to advise policy holders that their policy has lapsed”. In this case, the Cantu’s had a life insurance policy on their son. The son died and the Cantu’s made a claim for benefits from Southern Life & Heath Insurance Company. Southern denied the claim stating that the policy had lapsed for non-payment of premiums.

Understand The Insurance You Are Buying

February 12, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Good words of advice for any person buying insurance anywhere is: Know what you are buying. At the least, get it explained to you when purchasing some sort of insurance or warranty. This applies to the good people in the Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, and Weatherford areas of Texas.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette recently published a news story where-in people were buying a pipe warranty. The title of the story is “Lawsuit Filed Over Opt-Out Waterline Insurance”. The charge for this warranty was only five dollars a month, but it was worthless to the people to whom it was being sold.

The pipe warranty was sold by the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. The warranty provider is Utility Line Security, or ULS, a new, Wilkinsburg-based business that shares most of their officers with Resource Development and Management. RDM is a politically connected firm that worked closely with the water authority Executive Director.

Diminished Value Claims In Texas

February 10, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Diminished value claims have to be looked at from two different standing points. In Texas, whether you are in Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or out in Weatherford, the same rules to go by are going to apply.

Diminished value would be the difference in the value of your car after a wreck, even though it has been repaired, and the value your car would have had, if the wreck had not occurred. A good example of this is as follows: You bought a new car 3 months ago for $30,000. Let’s say the car is now worth $28,000. Your have a wreck. The car is repaired. Now, because the car has been in a wreck, the car is only worth $23,500. The reason it is worth less is because anyone buying the car will not pay as much for it, knowing it has been wrecked, than they would pay if it had not been wrecked. In our example, the car should be worth $28,000. This $4,500 difference is the “diminished value”.

The first standing point, when making a diminished value claim, is when you are going to make a claim against another driver / insurance company. In making the claim against someone else who caused the damage to your car, they are responsible for the diminished value of your vehicle that was harmed in an accident. There are companies whose business purpose is to help people with these claims.

What is Personal Injury Protection (PIP) In Texas

February 9, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Anytime a person buys insurance coverage for their automobile in Texas, they are given many options. These options include choices related to collision coverage, coverage for towing, rental cars, and even life insurance, to mention a few. No matter where you buy automobile coverage in Texas, whether it is Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or in Weatherford , you are also given the option to buy uninsured / underinsured beneits and personal injury protection benefits also known as PIP.

In discussing PIP coverage, one should know that this coverage is regulated in the Texas Insurance Code, Sections 1952.151 thru 1952.161.

Section 1952.151 says that PIP provides payment of all reasonable expenses that arise from an accident for: A) necessary medical care, B) lost income for a wage earner, and C) reinbursement for reasonable expenses for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person. An example of this last one would be reinbursing an injured person for having to pay someone to mow his yard because his injuries prevented him from doing it himself.

2 Texas Auto Policies – One Accident

February 8, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Here is a situaton where a Dallas resident had a wreck in Mesquite, but it could have been Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, or out in Weatherford. The injured persons had two insurance policies with the same insurance company.

This happened in a 1984 case, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island, v. Lenny and Terri Lucas. Mr. Lucas was accompanied by his wife, Ms. Lucas, in an ambulance. A drunk driver ran head-on into the ambulance causing injuries to the Lucas’. They had two separate insurance policies with Travelers Indemnity, for Personal Injury Protection benefits and underinsured motorists benefits. Travelers paid the full amount under one policy to each of the Lucas’ but refused to pay under the second policy. The damages to the Lucas’ exceeded the limit of both the policies combined.

The ambulance also had underinsured benefits with a policy through Aetna. Travelers tried to limit what it had to pay by citing an “Other Insurance” clause within the Travelers policy.

Health Insurance Lawsuit – Big One

February 7, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

It does not matter whether you live in little ole Weatherford, Texas, or some of the bigger communities like Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, or Grand Prairie. Health insurance is a concern of everybody.

A recent lawsuit in Colorado illustrates the anger that can be taken out against an insurance company that does one of its insureds wrong. The article is in the Denver Post. The title of the article is “Canceled Insurance Leads To $37 Million Verdict For Woman.”

A jury in the city and county of Boulder returned a verdict of $37 million to a woman whose health insurance policy was canceled after she was seriously injured in a car accident.

Underinsured / Uninsured Auto Claims In Texas

February 6, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Praire, Weatherford, or any other town in Texas should be interested in a question posed by an attorney the other day on a web-site, to other attorneys who sub-scribed to the site. It was a question dealing with uninsured and underinsured (UM) automobile coverage.

In the situation, a potential client had come into the attorneys office. The potential new client had been involved in an accident where the other person did not have enough insurance coverage to fully cover the damages this potential new client had suffered. Sounds simple so far. Here was the problem: More than two years had past since the accident had occurred. The question posed was: Can I recover more money from the UM coverage on the injured persons automobile policy.

This was the issue in the case Raul C. Franco et ux., v. Allstate Insurance Company. In the Franco case, Franco sought to recover damages due to the death of their daughter in an automobile accident. The lawsuit had been filed approximately three years after the date of the accident. The applicable statute of limitations for an injury claim was two years.

Arbitration In Insurance Contracts

February 5, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Lots of insurance policies are issued with arbitration agreements written into them. Almost never, will the person taking out the insurance policy be aware of, or ask about an arbitration agreement being part of the insurance policy. Residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Weatherford, or any any city or town in Texas can be adversely affected by these arbitration clauses in the insurance policy.

Lake Texoma Highport, LLC, v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et. al., is a recent case discussing arbitration clauses in insurance policy’s. This case was decided on December 28, 2009, and is good reading to try and understand the way courts look at arbitration clauses.

Lake Texoma Highport, LLC (“Highport”) owns a marina. In early 2005 and early 2006 and in 2007 Highport instructed defendant Houstoun, Woodward, Eason, Gentle, Tomforde and Anderson, Inc. d/b/a Insurance Alliance (“Insurance Alliance”) to locate a property insurance policy. Insurance Alliance provided Highport with a property insurance agreement from defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”). Highport suffered damages and filed a claim under the policy. Highport then learned for the first time that CRC Insurance Services, Inc (“CRC”) and Bowood Partners, Limited (“Bowood”) were active participants in procurment of the insurance policy.

Insurance Company Fights Hard To Have Case Fought In Federal Court

February 4, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

Insurance companies prefer to have lawsuits litigated and fought in Federal Court. Attorneys who represent individuals and companies in Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Weatherford, or any other community in Texas, prefer to be in the local State and County Courts. There are several reasons an insurance company prefers to be in Federal Court, but the bottom line is, it is better for them to be in Federal Court.

One fight an insurance company recently lost was in the case, Rosario Mayorga, v. Government Employees Insurance Company. The opinion on this case was issued on January 20, 2010.

The Mayorga case was originally filed in the 79th District Court of Jim Wells County. Mayorga sued Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and the adjuster, Sean Hicks. GEICO is an insurance company with its headquarters located outside of Texas, which is a condition that would allow for the case to be removed to Federal Court. However, the adjuster, Hicks, was a Texas resident which would prevent removal. GEICO claimed that Hicks was improperly sued and because he was improperly sued the case should be allowed into Federal Court.

Excess Insurance Case In Texas

February 3, 2010 | Mark S. Humphreys

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently decided a case wherein the insured argued that he had an excess insurance policy. The court decided that his policy was not an excess insurance policy.

The case is styled “Danny Kirk, v. Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Co.” In this case, Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Co. (“UUT”), issued to Olympic International Trucks, Inc. d/b/a Olympic Ideal Lease (“Olympic”) an insurance policy. Kirk, who was injured by a tractor-trailer unit leased to Gulf Coast Building Supply (“Gulf Coast”), asserted that the policy issued to UUT was an excess policy.

The court analysed the policy. Reading Part 500 of the UUT Policy, it provided liability insurance to Olympic for injuries arising out of “garage operations” or “auto hazard.” Auto hazard included coverage of “anyone else required by law to be an insured while using an auto under a lease or rental agreement, within the scope of Olympic’s permission.” The UUT Policy provided that it only covered Olympic’s lessees if “at the time of the accident, the insurance required by the lease or rental agreement is not collectable.”