It is well-settled Texas law that plaintiffs are prevented from directly suing a defendant’s insurer unless and until a final judgment or settlement has resolved the litigation at issue. A related line of cases sets out when a third party (not the insured) can bind a non-participating insurer to an underlying judgment or settlement.
Texas law has long disfavored the now uncommon practice of liability insurers “soliciting a contribution to a settlement from its insured without first committing its own policy limits.” The Supreme Court of Texas was recently faced with such a situation.
Last March, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, unanimously ratifying the “Eight Corners” Rule as a settled feature of Texas law. However, the Court set the stage for future challenge to this consensus when it noted the “Eight Corners” Rule could “possibly” be “subject…to exceptions.” Which exceptions? How many exceptions? It appears we may soon find out.
An update on early COVID-19 coverage rulings. While only a handful of the hundreds of pending cases have been decided, one trend is emerging...
On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of four health insurance companies, recognizing their right to sue the federal government for unpaid subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division recently issued an opinion in a UIM case that precludes the recovery of extra-contractual damages absent a finding that the insured was entitled to benefits.
The Supreme Court recently issued three per curiam opinions clarifying the effect of an insurer's payment of an appraisal award.
The Court has addressed — and rejected — a language-based exception, under which an insurer’s duty to defend is determined by the claims alleged in the petition and the coverage provided in the policy documents.
The Texas Supreme Court has—for the first time—expressly adopted an exception to the eight-corners rule, to be applied in cases where the insured and a third party fraudulently collude to secure a defense.
Jeffrey Glass recently wrote about a question, certified to the Texas Supreme Court by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding the continuing validity of the “eight corners” rule.