It is not an over-statement to say Texas Insurance Companies make lots of money and profits. Many of these companies are based in or have big offices in Dallas and Fort Worth. Having said that, every few years one will go out of business. When an insurance company goes out of business it is usually the result of a natural disaster such as a hurricane effecting an area where they have a lot of policies issued. Not once has it been because of too many lawsuits.

So what happens if your insurance company goes out of business? In Texas, when an insurance company becomes insolvent, meaning its liabilities or debts exceed its assets, the company is placed in receivership by a state District Court Judge and this authorizes the Texas Commissioner of Insurance to take charge of the company.

So what happens to your insurance claim? In Texas, all licensed insurers must be members of the guaranty association for their particular type of insurance. There are associations for title insurance, life and health insurance, annuities, property and casualty, auto, and home, etc.

The purpose of the guaranty associations is to pay lawful claims made to the insurance company that has been placed in receivership. The thing to keep in mind is they will play games with you and give you a feeling of “hopelessness”. It has been our experience that it is definitly more difficult and time consuming, but in the end we have always been to get our clients situations worked out.
Continue reading ›

A DFW area (Weatherford) widow and resident of Texas, recently got a good settlement involving a credit life insurance policy.

In 2005 a man went into a local car dealership to buy a new truck. After the down payment and trade-in he financed a little over $27,000 on the truck. While closing the deal with the finance manager at the dealership he was asked to purchase a credit life policy covering the debt on the truck and he did. This type of policy is suppose to pay any remaining debt on the loan. A year later he died and the debt on the truck remained at about $23,000.

His widow applied for benefits to pay off the truck and was denied. The stated reason for denial was that her husband had lied about his medical conditions on the application for insurance. He had died from a cause that was asked about on the application. The application had a box checked wherein he was stating he had never had that medical problem, and it was signed by him. The insurance company sent a copy of the application with the box checked and the husbands signature, to his widow.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld a decision from the Northern District of Texas wherein the District Court Judge upheld a claim denied by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The stated reason for denial was that the circumstances of death did not fall within the policy’s coverage.

The claimant Mary McMurray and her husband went on a honeymoon cruise with Oceania Cruises. The cruise was paid for by Joe McMurray by using his Platinum Select Citibank Mastercard, which included a $1,000,000 accidental death or dismemberment insurance policy Issued by National Union. As the spouse of Joe, Mary McMurray was eligible for benefits. Among the types of hazards covered by the insurance policy was coverage if the insured person (Joe) was injured or killed while “riding as a passenger in or on (including getting in or out of, or on or off of) any Common Carrier.” The policy defined “common carrier” as “any licensed land, water or air conveyance operated by those whose occupation or business is the transportation of persons for hire.” “Passenger” was defined as “a person not performing as a pilot, operator or crew member of a conveyance.”

Like lots of cruise ship passengers, the McMurrays went on other excursions while on the cruise and purchased a separate whitewater rafting excursion operated by a separate entity. The excursion was charged to the McMurrays’ cruise account and became an additional charge on the Citibank Mastercard. While on the rafting trip, Joe McMurray was thrown from the raft and drowned. National Union denied the claim stating the raft was not a common carrier and the McMurrays were not passengers under the policy while on the raft.

National Union filed what is called a “declaratory judgment action” with the court asking the court to agree with their decision that there was no coverage and declare such by court action.

The court spent time discussing the plain ordinary meaning of the terms “common carrier” and “passenger” and how Texas defined these terms. The court decided that the rafting company was not a “common carrier” as that term is defined and thus no coverage. This was in spite of the McMurray argument that carrying a person from one place to another for hire is transportation and what a common carrier does and that was exactly what was occurring in the raft trip. While the court agreed that the rafting was involved in transportation, transportation was not its primary function. Its primary function was entertaining rafting participants and that transportation was incidental to the primary purpose.

It is unknown whether this ruling in favor of the insurance company will be appealed but it does serve as an example of how some fights arise in the context of trying to recover benefits under insurance policies. Keep in mind that in Texas and most other states the courts are suppose to find in favor of coverage whenever possible. In other words if there is a way to interpret an insurance policy such that the policy should provide benefits, the courts are suppose to interpret the policy in such a way as to allow the benefits.
Continue reading ›

Insurance companies are notorious for delaying payment and dragging a claim out and the result being that many people get frustrated and give up or walk away. What the person who was wronged by the insurance company does to “get back” is change insurance companies.

Insurance companies are highly regulated and have lots of rules they have to operate under. What is important to remember is that the rules are designed to make sure they are not taking advantage of you.

It is hard to know the rules as can be seen by reading the ones above and noting that they refer you to more rules and if you go to those rules you are referred further. Beyond that, you still have to know how the rules apply to different situations and how the courts have interpreted the rules.

Some people know what a Credit Life and Disability Policy is but not everybody. Essentially it is a policy of insurance that is purchased by a borrower of money and the policy is suppose to do two basic things. One, pay off the loan in the event the insured person dies and two, make the payments due on the borrowed money while a person is disabled for as long as the disability lasts.

Most of the time these are purchased in two situations. The first and most common is when someone mortgages their home. The second is when someone purchases an automobile. There are many other financial situations where a credit life and disability policy is offered to a borrower and sometimes the lender requires it to be purchased.

Another situation where these types of policies are seen is in credit card transactions. Lots of credit cards offer the coverage free of charge while others charge you a few dollars a month for the coverage. In the credit card situation it is usually a matter of knowing or remembering you have the coverage when the time comes for yourself or a surviving heir to apply for the benefit. We have not seen lots of situations where this benefit is denied or refused in a credit card situation and in the situations where it has occurred, we have been able to resolve the conflict with a few phone calls or certified letters. It has been rare to actually get involved in a lawsuit.

If you listen or watch the news much, especially around election time you would think that the only thing insurance companies ever do is pay claims. And not only do they pay claims, but they pay nothing but frivolous claims. And of course that is why your insurance rates are so high and why the above title would be a headline.

Politicians scream loud about the need for tort reform and about how there are too many lawsuits and too many people looking for a free ride. This is especially true in a Texas where there is a very conservative political environment. This is an issue that helps get a lot of politicians elected. George Bush was always invoking the evils of “trial lawyers”.

So based on the above you would think it is unusual for an insurance company to actually deny a claim and that the companies only exist to pay people unwarranted claims. This thought is far from reality.

The Texas Supreme Court in the case Tanner vs Nationwide has ruled in a case concerning exclusions for “intentional acts” committed by an insured driver.

The case facts involved a high speed chase wherein the driver, Gibbons was fleeing the police going at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour in urban and residential neighborhoods, topping 100 miles per hour in rural areas, swerving across the road, going into and across fields, and around police cars. The chase ultimately resulted in Gibbons entering an intersection where the Tanner family was also entering and had the right-of-way. Gibbons did slam on his brakes and skidded to try and avoid a collision with the Tanners. Injuries resulted to the Tanner family.

1192380_texas_flag.jpeg
The Tanners sued Gibbons and took a judgment against Gibbons however Nationwide refused to defend Gibbons or pay for Tanners damages arguing the intentional-injury exclusion in the policy of insurance barred coverage for the Tanners’ claims. Nationwide contended that when Gibbons fled police, he voided coverage under the policy’s intentional-injury exclusion, which withholds coverage for: “Property damage or bodily injury caused intentionally by or at the direction of an insured, including willful acts the result of which the insured knows or ought to know will follow from the insured’s conduct”.

Contact Information