The following cases illustrate some of the Perry Law P.C.’s Insurance Industry Group’s experience in handling claims litigation:
Loncar v. GEICO
A Texas judge granted a motion for summary judgment in a case involving an insurance dispute over a hospital lien.
Attorneys at Loncar Associates filed a lawsuit against GEICO and others for negotiating and paying a hospital lien for its insured. Loncar’s client, Herman Wright, was in a car accident on August 2, 2017 in Arlington, Texas and went to a hospital emergency room. The hospital filed a lien as allowed by law after the client failed to pay for services provided by the hospital. As the client’s insurance company, GEICO negotiated and paid the hospital lien to protect its insured. Loncar later sued GEICO, claiming the insurance company could not pay the lien without paying a 40 percent contingency fee to the attorney.
Perry Law attorneys Meloney Perry and Stacy Thompson filed a motion for summary judgment, stating GEICO could negotiate the lien on behalf of its insured under Texas law without paying Loncar’s contingency fee. The judge granted GEICO’s motion and dismissed Loncar’s suit against GEICO. Loncar did not appeal the decision.
The case is Loncar v. GEICO, et al.Case Result
Bendinelli v. MetLife and GEICO
A Colorado federal judge dismissed a civil conspiracy case against MetLife and GEICO after Perry Law attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment. Attorneys also obtained an order granting Defendant GEICO its attorney’s fees and costs.
Perry Law founder Meloney Perry and attorney Stacy Thompson defended MetLife and GEICO after Natalie Bendinelli accused GEICO of improperly participating in a settlement agreement between Bendinelli and MetLife over a lawsuit filed in 2015. When a district judge enforced the settlement, Bendinelli filed a civil conspiracy lawsuit against MetLife and GEICO claiming she was deceived into believing she settled her lawsuit with MetLife only.
Perry Law attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment and requested that Bendinelli be prohibited from conducting further discovery because of her lack of diligence. The judge refused to allow further discovery and granted the motion for summary judgment, stating GEICO had proven Plaintiff had insufficient evidence to show civil conspiracy had been committed.Case Result
Nash Gonzales v. GEICO
A Texas judge grants a no evidence summary judgment in a breach of contract lawsuit against GEICO.
Judge John Roach, Jr. in the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas granted the order and dismissed the case after Perry Law attorneys Meloney Perry and Stacy Thompson submitted the motion.
The lawsuit stemmed from a July 16, 2013 crash involving Nash Gonzales. His insurance company denied coverage due to his policy being canceled for failure to pay his auto insurance premium.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Gonzales sued GEICO four years after the accident for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Insurance Code, Breaching its Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, breach of contract and fraud by misrepresentation. The court eliminated all the claims except breach of contract, after granting GEICO’s special exceptions.
Perry and Thompson moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Gonzales had not and could not provide enough evidence that he was damaged by GEICO’s actions. After reviewing the case, the judge granted GEICO’s motion for no evidence summary judgment and dismissed the case.
The case is Nash Gonzales v. Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO, cause no. 296-03256-2017 in the 296th Judicial District of Collin County, Texas.Case Result
Brian R. Desizlets v. GEICO Casualty Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-00031-CMA-NYW.
Trial: May 21, 2018-May 23, 2018 before Judge Arguello in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
At Defendant’s request, Judge Arguello dismissed as a matter of law Plaintiff’s claims for common law bad faith, statutory bad faith and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act after the Plaintiff rested his case in chief. The dismissal of the Plaintiff’s bad faith claims allowed Defendant to present its case in less than 5 hours and shorten the trial by two days.
The jury took a little less than two hours to return a defense verdict on Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim for breach of contract.Case Result
Perry Law attorneys obtained summary judgment in a direct action case in Tarrant County District Court, as well as an order granting GEICO’s Motion for Protective Order regarding the deposition of a corporate representative.Case Result
The Perry Law Firm obtained summary judgment on an oral settlement agreement in Dallas County Court at Law #4, which was affirmed on appeal. Attorneys also obtained an award of costs, which excused the Defendant from paying the remaining settlement to the Plaintiff.Case Result
Attorneys with the Perry Law Firm obtained a summary judgment in Bexar County District Court on a direct action claim brought by a third party, who had obtained default judgment against the insured without discovery or depositions.Case Result
Smith Estate Case
In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Perry Law Firm attorneys obtained a summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims of bad faith and breach of contract due to GEICO destroying remnants of a car despite “promising” to hold it. Plaintiff’s claimed their product defect claim against the manufacturer was negatively impacted by GEICO’s destruction of evidence.Case Result
David Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 14-1192 D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01049 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. Lead counsel.
This was a breach of contract dispute brought by the insured (Tucker) against his insurance carrier after his claim for underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) was denied due to an acting agent rejecting UIM coverage on his behalf. Tucker argued Colorado law required each insured to reject UIM coverage, therefore one named insured could not reject coverage for another insured. The carrier filed a motion for summary judgment arguing one named insured could reject coverage for other named insureds. The district court agreed with the carrier, granted its motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The insured appealed the district court’s order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.Case Result
The summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant was affirmed by 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Melvyn Jaramillo and Debbie Jaramillo, No.6:10-cv-01905 JCH/LFG, U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico. Lead counsel. This is a putative class action brought by insureds who allege that the carrier failed to make a valid offer of UM/UIM coverage and that the UM/UIM coverage rejection forms utilized by the companies are improper. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the client. The appeal of the district court’s order is before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.Case Result
Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant. Affirmed on appeal by 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Denise Reid, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Case No. 06-1484. Lead counsel. Concerned the handling of PIP claims. Favorable ruling on appeal for the client, affirming district court’s summary judgment. Reid, 499 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).Case Result
Summary judgment affirmed on appeal
Debra Aumada, as next friend of Christopher Rogers and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Cause No. 99-1410-D, 105th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Lead Counsel. This class action involved the carrier’s alleged improper utilization of with respect to the evaluation of damages for automobile claims. It also involved the auto insurer’s right to refuse insured’s consent to sue the third party claimants.Case Result
Summary judgment for Defendant
Michelle L. Meadows and Garin Farmer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 02-CV1989, District Court, Division 13, County of El Paso, Colorado. Lead counsel. This proposed class action was brought by insureds injured in motorcycle accidents seeking PIP coverage under their auto policies. Plaintiffs also sought to invalidate a UM exclusion in the auto policies.Case Result
The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification