#BOXER PROPERTY SECURITY HOUSTON TX CODE#
#BOXER PROPERTY SECURITY HOUSTON TX TRIAL#

Boxer moved for traditional summary judgment on Dortch’s claims, arguing (among other things) that all of Dortch’s claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. 3 paychecks.” He asserted that Boxer “acted as an agent in agreeing to withhold the premiums from paycheck and pay them to the insurer, and thus is liable to for misrepresenting insurance coverage to” him. Dortch thus contends that Boxer “is estopped from denying the disability benefits from for disability under the terms of the long term disability policy.” Dortch also argued that Boxer misrepresented that it “paid the long term disability insurer the long term disability insurance premiums deducted from 1 Dortch asserts that he waited until he stopped receiving worker’s compensation benefits to seek long-term disability benefits. Dortch argued that Boxer “promised to pay the long term disability premiums” and that he “justifiably relied upon promise to do so” to his detriment. Alternatively, Dortch asserted that Boxer was liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In February 2015 (long after the parties became embroiled in litigation against one another on other claims), Dortch sued Boxer arguing that Boxer breached an alleged agreement between the parties by failing to pay Reliance premiums for Dortch’s long-term disability insurance. In August 2013, Dortch sought long-term disability benefits from Reliance.1 According to Dortch, Reliance denied his claim because Boxer did not pay premiums to Reliance for Dortch’s coverage. Dortch did not respond or otherwise request long-term disability benefits in 2010. 2 The letter stated that if Dortch did not do so, Reliance would assume that he did not want to pursue any such benefits. In an August 2010 letter, Reliance denied Dortch’s claim for short-term disability benefits because his “condition was work related and therefore excluded from coverage by the disability carrier under the terms of the short term disability contract.” In that same 2010 letter, Reliance informed Dortch that, if he intended to seek long-term disability benefits, he had to make a request and submit certain materials. Soon thereafter, Dortch sought short-term disability benefits. Dortch contends that he “should also have been covered by short term disability insurance and long term disability insurance with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company.” Boxer terminated Dortch’s employment in June 2010.

At the time, Dortch was covered by and received worker’s compensation benefits in connection with the injury. Background On April 1, 2010, Dortch was injured while working as a security guard for Boxer.

#BOXER PROPERTY SECURITY HOUSTON TX TRIAL#

Boxer sought summary judgment on numerous grounds, and the trial court granted Boxer summary judgment.

#BOXER PROPERTY SECURITY HOUSTON TX CODE#

In 2015, Dortch sued Boxer for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), arguing that Boxer was liable for his lost benefits because it failed to enroll him and remit premiums to Reliance to ensure his coverage. Reliance concluded that, in 2010 (when Dortch suffered an on-the-job injury), Dortch was not covered under its policy. 2015-10546 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Kenneth Dortch sued his former employer, appellee Boxer Property Management Corporation, after Boxer’s long-term disability insurance carrier, Reliance, denied Dortch benefits under its plan. BOXER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No.

Opinion issued JIn The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas - NO.

Boxer property security houston tx