Case No. 23-0408
HOF Partners paid premiums for a surplus-lines policy from Nautilus Insurance to its retail broker, Summit, which never sent them to the surplus-lines agent, Breckenridge, or to Nautilus, and Nautilus canceled the policy under its terms. HOF argued that Summit acted as Nautilus's agent under a payment plan in the application because it collected premiums, while Nautilus argued that only a licensed surplus-lines agent can accept premium payments on behalf of the insurer under Insurance Code § 981.007.1
The Fort Worth Second Court of Appeals held that Chapter 4001's agency provisions apply and that there was a fact issue whether Summit accepted premiums on Nautilus's behalf (2023 WL 3114309). The Court requested merits briefing and denied the petition for review on November 15, 2024, with Justices Lehrmann and Devine not participating; it denied Nautilus's motion for rehearing on June 27, 2025, after four amicus briefs urged rehearing.
Petition for review from the Second Court of Appeals; petition denied November 15, 2024, and rehearing denied June 27, 2025 (Docket).
Whether only a registered surplus-lines agent can accept premium payments for a surplus-lines policy under Chapter 981 of the Insurance Code, or whether Chapter 4001's general provisions make any person who collects premiums the insurer's agent.1
Nautilus (Petitioner): Chapter 4001 applies only to insurers regulated by the Department of Insurance, surplus-lines insurers are not, and the specific surplus-lines provisions of Chapter 981 control.
HOF Partners (Respondent): surplus-lines insurers are regulated, Chapter 4001 applies, and there is a genuine fact issue whether Summit had authority to collect premiums.1
Not applicable—the petition was denied.
None noted
The statement said the motion and amicus briefs persuasively showed that the legal questions warrant full consideration, that denial expresses no view of the merits under Loram Maintenance of Way v. Ianni, that other courts should exercise independent judgment on similar questions, and that if amici's predicted market disruption occurs the Court will have further opportunities, likely sooner rather than later.1
Motion for rehearing denied; Justices Lehrmann and Devine did not participate (Docket).
Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, issued a statement saying they would grant rehearing and the petition.2
The following is current as of October 9, 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 08/25/2023 | Petition for Review (Nautilus Insurance Company) |
| 01/08/2024 | Response to Petition (HOF Partners LLC) |
| 01/19/2024 | Reply to Response (Nautilus Insurance Company) |
| 03/08/2024 | Brief on the Merits Ordered |
| 06/07/2024 | Petitioner's Brief on the Merits |
| 08/13/2024 | Respondent's Brief on the Merits (HOF Partners LLC) |
| 08/15/2024 | Respondent's Brief on the Merits (HOF Partners LLC) |
| 09/18/2024 | Reply Brief (Nautilus Insurance Company) |
| 06/18/2025 | Reply to Response to Motion for Rehearing filed (Nautilus Insurance Company) |
| 06/27/2025 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed |
| 06/27/2025 | Statement Issued Statement of Justice Young and Justice Sullivan respecting the denial of the motion for rehearing. |
| — | Statement of Justice Young and Justice Sullivan |
Review SCOTX decisions faster than ever.
With a SCOTX Report account, receive AI-generated summaries of every opinion and order, plus direct links to the briefing, opinions, and orders themselves—so you can quickly determine whether each opinion and order deserves your attention.
Create a Free Account Log In