Texas Update loves Halloween, but we are not sure the feeling is mutual. We went trick or treating last year and returned home with a bag full of restraining orders. And speaking of bobbing for apples…
INSURER GETS TWO BITES OF THE APPLE: Husband turned in a claim to his auto insurer for damage to the family auto. The insurer took a recorded statement of the Husband which was not consistent with the auto’s physical damage. According to the insurer the physical evidence indicated multiple impacts in unrelated incidents and paint transfers that did not match the paint of the other vehicle that husband said was involved in the accident. The insurer asked for segregated EUOs of the Husband and Wife. H & W refused to give segregated statements, but offered to give statements as long as they could do so in the presence of one another. The insurer insisted on segregated statements. H & W sued the auto insurer for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment of their rights and obligations under the policy. The Texas appellate court ruled that although policy was silent regarding how examinations of the insureds could be conducted, it was proper to infer a reasonable term allowing the insurer to require separate, segregated examinations. The case was not dismissed, but returned to the trial court to give H & W an opportunity to mend their stubborn ways. Lidawi v Progressive County Mutual Ins Co, (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist,] 2004).
The Texas Supreme Court handed down no decisions this morning. We suspect the justices are getting their costumes ready and lining up the kegs.
Many of our clients have requested that we include a photo of the editorial staff in our weekly missives. We have resisted this request in the past due to natural modesty, but have reconsidered. Here you go:
THE STAFF–2004