 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.8/10/2000
Appellants appeal from a judgment on their suit against appellee State Farm denying them all the relief they claimed was due under their underinsured motorist coverage. In seventeen points of error, appellants contend: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the appraisal process pursuant to their policy with State Farm (points one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight); (2) the trial court erred by severing their Texas Insurance Code claim, under section 21.55, and entering judgment without interest and attorney's fees for their Insurance Code claim (points nine, ten, and eleven); (3) the trial court erred in failing to allow evidence and a jury issue on appellants' breach of contract claim (points twelve and thirteen); and (4) the trial court erred in failing to award appellants' attorney's fees, court costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest on their property damage award (points fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In March 1992, Stanley Lee (Lee) ran a red light and struck Annie Laas's 1990 Oldsmobile Delta 88, which the Laases had purchased new for $21,286.00. The collision totaled the Oldsmobile, and Lee's insurance paid his property damage policy limits of $10,000.00. Because this amount did not cover the value of their car, the Laases made a claim on their underinsured coverage with State Farm. They reported the accident to State Farm immediately after it occurred, but the record does not show what activity, if any, occurred in the year after the accident.
As part of appellants' bill of exceptions, the record contains appellants' letters to State Farm seeking $6,590.95 ($16,590.95 less the $10,000.00 paid by Lee's insurance) for the Oldsmobile and State Farm's replies to appellants (shown as "plaintiffs' exhibits" in the reporter's record). Appellants' first demand letter is dated July 2, 1993. State Farm responded to appellants' demand letter with their letter of July 20, 1993, re questing documentation supporting their evaluation. Appellants responded with their valuations, and increased their offer to settle the disputed claim for $6,914.95. State Farm replied on August 3, 1993, and offered $2,309.13. On September 3,1993, appellants sent another demand letter to State Farm to substantiate the $6,914.95 they sought for the car. Appellants sent two more demand letters to State Farm dated September 27, 1993 and October 6, 1993 for $6,914.95. On October l5, 1993, State Farm sent a letter to appellants stating that they disagreed with appellants' valuations and they "would like to comply with the appraisal portion" of its policy with the Laases. In their brief, appellants claim this request for an appraisal, timed eighteen months after the accident, should have been sought immediately after the accident.
Although the record is silent about further action or inaction on the Laases's claim, they filed suit against State Farm in June 1996 for the underinsured benefits and for violation of article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code. In August 1996, State Farm moved to abate the pending lawsuit and compel the appraisal process. In December 1996, the trial court granted the motion to compel and appointed an umpire for the appraisal process. No record was made of the hearing on State Farm's motion to compel. The property damage portion of appellants' lawsuit was severed from the remaining personal injury case and their Prompt Payment of Claims action under section 21.55, Texas Insurance Code.
The briefs indicate that there was no evidentiary hearing set for the umpire's award, and that appellants were not given any notice of a hearing if one was held. In their briefs, the parties indicate that in May 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|