Insurance—The SCOTX Report

23-0273·Other

Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins.

administrative law insurance

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a facial challenge to the Division of Workers' Compensation's rule on job applications for supplemental income benefits, writing that a facial challenge was the wrong vehicle for deciding whether the rule impermissibly drops the statute's requirement that applications be "submitted by the recipient."
He said the question would likely merit review in a challenge to a specific award, or if the rule were shown to require unlawful awards, and that in such a case the Court could and should assess critically an agency's power to rewrite statutory criteria now that the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned Chevron deference.

Read full breakdown

23-0408·Petition For Review

Nautilus Ins. Co. v. HOF Partners LLC

insurance

The Court denied rehearing of its earlier denial of the petition for review in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. HOF Partners, a dispute over whether an insured's payment of premiums to its retail broker counted as payment to a surplus-lines insurer, and Justices Young and Sullivan issued a statement saying they would grant rehearing and the petition.
The statement said the question is which entities may accept premium payments for a surplus-lines policy under the Insurance Code, that amici warned of disruption to the Texas surplus-lines market, and that the denial expresses no view on the merits and leaves the questions open for other courts and future cases.

Read full breakdown

23-0755·Mandamus

In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

insurance civil procedure

When an underinsured-motorist insured sues for a declaratory judgment on her entitlement to benefits and also asserts extracontractual Insurance Code claims, the trial court must abate the extracontractual claims and the related discovery until the insured obtains a judgment establishing UIM coverage.
A UIM insurer with no personal knowledge of the crash that has stipulated to matters within its knowledge, produced its nonprivileged claim file and supported its proportionality objections with evidence is entitled to have a notice to depose its corporate representative quashed during the coverage phase.

Read full breakdown

23-0950·Petition For Review

Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mendiola

insurance employment

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a petition challenging an award of lifetime income benefits, writing that the case is not a good vehicle to decide whether courts must keep applying Travelers Insurance v. Seabolt's 1962 "total loss of use" test or the plain text of Labor Code section 408.161.
He noted that a newer statute supersedes case law construing an older one, so a future case in which the choice between Seabolt and the current statute decides the outcome could warrant review.

Read full breakdown

24-0132·Other

Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. v. Mankoff

insurance

The undefined term "windstorm" in a homeowners policy is not ambiguous and its ordinary meaning includes a tornado, so a "Windstorm or Hail Deductible" applied to tornado damage to the Mankoffs' home.
The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the insurer.

Read full breakdown

24-0172·Mandamus

In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

insurance civil procedure

The Court denied mandamus, without prejudice, to State Farm's challenge to a trial court's refusal to sever and abate extracontractual claims and to quash corporate-representative and adjuster depositions in a UIM case, so the trial court can revisit its rulings under the guidance the Court gave the same day in In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (No. 23-0755).
The Court also denied, without prejudice, the related petition challenging sanction orders (No. 24-1052) and a dozen other pending UIM mandamus petitions raising the same issues.

Read full breakdown

24-0525·Other

S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. v. Scallon Controls, Inc.

indemnity insurance

A proportional-indemnity clause can allow settling defendants to recover from a non-settling subcontractor its share of the settlement; the 1987 rule that a settling defendant has no contribution right (Beech Aircraft v. Jinkins) does not bar contractual indemnity.
The Court reversed the summary judgment for Scallon Controls and remanded, over a four-Justice dissent.

Read full breakdown

24-0786·Mandamus

In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

insurance civil procedure

Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by signing a scheduling order that declares a defendant's deadlines to amend pleadings and designate experts had already "PASSED" when, absent a signed discovery control plan, the rules' default Level 2 deadlines were still months away.
Whether the trial court then abused its discretion by striking the defendant's amended answer and refusing leave to file a counteraffidavit and designate experts, leaving the defendant without an adequate remedy by appeal.

Read full breakdown

24-1034·Petition For Review

Morris v. Old Republic Ins. Co.

insurance employment

Did the court of appeals err by deciding the case on a settlement-credit argument Old Republic never presented to the trial court and first raised in its reply brief, and by reading a "settlement credit limitation" from Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.012(b) into the employer liability offset in Labor Code § 417.001(b)?
Even if preserved, is Old Republic estopped or contractually barred from claiming a credit on the Georgia-Pacific settlement funds, and how should the carrier's subrogation lien be calculated when workers settled before a partial-responsibility verdict?

Read full breakdown

25-0410·Petition For Review

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co.

insurance employment

Does an umbrella policy's employer's-liability exclusion for bodily injury to an insured's employee bar coverage for a refinery owner sued by a contractor's injured workers because the owner was a statutory employer under the Labor Code?
Do the workers' compensation and employee-injury exclusions both apply on these facts?

Read full breakdown

25-0461·Mandamus

In re ACE Am. Ins. Co.

insurance

A trial court abused its discretion by refusing to compel appraisal under commercial-property policies where the parties' dispute was at least partly about the amount of loss; appraisal should not be barred at the outset unless the amount of loss will never be needed.
The Court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to compel appraisal.

Read full breakdown

25-0511·Petition For Review

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.

insurance

Whether an insurer's contribution to a settlement exhausts its policy limits and ends its duty to defend, or whether the insured must expressly agree in the settlement that the payment exhausted the limits.
How to count occurrences under premises-liability policies when more than a thousand claimants allege asbestos exposure from a railroad's decades of vermiculite transportation, and whether the insurer may recoup defense costs.

Read full breakdown

25-0880·Mandamus

In re Liberty County Mut. Ins. Co.

civil procedure insurance

Can a third-party claimant sue an insurer and its claims administrator for tortious interference, invasion of privacy and conspiracy over negotiated reductions of her medical bills, before the at-fault driver's liability has been established?
Should the trial court have dismissed those claims under Rule 91a because the claimant assigned away her interest, the no-direct-action rule and remoteness defeat justiciability, and the insurer was justified, and does mandamus lie to review the denial?

Read full breakdown

25-0932·Mandamus

In re Claim Tech Solutions

civil procedure insurance

Can a third-party claimant sue an insurer's claims administrator for tortious interference, invasion of privacy and conspiracy over negotiated reductions of her medical bills, before the at-fault driver's liability has been established?
Should the trial court have dismissed those claims under Rule 91a because the claimant assigned away her interest, the no-direct-action rule and remoteness defeat justiciability, and the insurer was justified, and does mandamus lie to review the denial?

Read full breakdown

25-1045·Petition For Review

Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Williamson County

construction law insurance civil procedure breach of contract

Under Government Code section 2253.078(a), does a public work contract terminate, and the one-year limitations period on a performance-bond claim begin, when the owner terminates the contractor's right to proceed and demands performance from the surety?
Or does the contract, which the court of appeals held includes the bond, survive until the surety's own conduct under the bond ends, so that a suit filed 14 months after the county's termination notice is timely?

Read full breakdown