Tell us what you think via @statebaroftexas, email@example.com, or P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711-2487. Letters addressed to the Texas Bar Journal may be edited for clarity and length and become the property of the magazine, which owns all rights to their use.
Re: The 85th Session, Insurance, September 2017, p. 540
Reading the legislative insurance review in the September 2017 issue of the Journal, the first sentence of the second paragraph caught my attention. “A new chapter has been added to the Insurance Code, giving consumers the right to recover statutory damages for non-payment of property damage claims.” The bill the article refers to, in fact, takes remedies away from consumers. It does not add to them. In summary, House Bill 1774 (passed as Ins. Code 542A), limits consumer remedies in real property damage claims arising from “forces of nature,” in the following ways:
• reduces the amount of interest an insurance company must pay as penalty for wrongfully denying or delaying payment on a claim;
• grants immunity in most circumstances to agents and adjusters;
• because of the foregoing, forces many more consumer cases into federal court;
• increases the notice requirements consumers must provide to their carriers;
• limits consumers’ abilities to recover attorneys’ fees; and
• allows an extended inspection period for insurance companies to delay payments.
In my view, if there is any doubt that this legislation was strongly pro-insurance and strongly anti-consumer, one must look only to the groups that opposed the legislation and those that supported it. Texas Watch, AARP, and TTLA all opposed the legislation. TLR and the insurance lobbyists all supported it. The latter won. HENRY MOORE, Austin
Re: Praising Our JAGS, November 2017, p. 690
I appreciated Tom Vick’s homage to the JAG Corps of the respective services of the United States Armed Forces. These are tremendously rewarding careers in the law, affording opportunities that simply are not available in civilian practice. I am descended from a long line of military veterans and dearly wanted to be a JAG lawyer from an early age, but they wouldn’t have me because I’m blind in one eye. You’re expected to be a combat-ready soldier first, and a lawyer only secondarily. In my opinion, we do our nation a terrible disservice by excluding the disabled from serving as military lawyers and in other professional non-combat capacities. Even at age 58 I’d sign up tomorrow if they’d have me. DONALD W. DICKSON, Austin
On Social Media
Re: In Recess: A Life in
Color, October 2017, p. 582
Sure glad you’re not doing that inside the courtroom.
Thomas Csorba (@thomas_csorba) via Twitter
How cool is that guy!?!
Bob Sutton (@bobsutton) via Twitter
Re: Move Out of Your Own Way, October 2017, p.
Candace Mowrey-Pullin via Facebook
RE: Praising Our JAGs, November 2017, p. 690
Nice & well deserved salute!
Marjorie Perry via Facebook