TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Utica Nat'l Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Am. Indem. Co., 141 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2004)

257 citing cases

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. Admiral Insurance v. Ford
    607 F.3d 420 Fifth CircuitMay 25, 2010

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.2004).

  2. Willbros RPI, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
    601 F.3d 306 Fifth CircuitMarch 16, 2010

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 200 (Tex. 2004).

  3. National American Insurance v. Breaux
    368 F. Supp. 2d 604 E.D. TexasJanuary 6, 2005

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.2004); Balandran, 972 S.W.2d at 741 ; Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.1994); Royal Indem. Co. v. Marshall, 388 S.W.2d 176, 180 (Tex.1965).

  4. Citigroup, Inc. v. Federal Insurance
    649 F.3d 367 Fifth CircuitAugust 5, 2011

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.2004). Therefore, the primary goal is to give effect to the written expression of the parties’ intent. Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 972 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.1998).

  5. Lancer Insurance Co. v. Perez
    308 S.W.3d 35 Tex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)December 23, 2009

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 821-22 (Tex.1997).

  6. Simco Enterprises, Ltd. v. James River Insurance
    566 F. Supp. 2d 555 E.D. TexasJuly 11, 2008

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.2004); Balandran, 972 S.W.2d at 741 ; Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.1994).

  7. Nautilus Insurance v. Country Oaks Apartments, Ltd.
    556 F. Supp. 2d 611 W.D. TexasJune 2, 2008

    Indent., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.2004). When applying the eight corners rule, courts give the allegations in the petition a liberal interpretation. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex.1997). B.

  8. Lancer Insurance Company v. Oscar Perez, II Daniel Calhoun: Adriana Riojas Juan Gabriel Gonzales: Marisol Salazar Raul Guerra, Jr. Maria E. Guerra John A. Vela, Jr., and Louis Garcia and Garcia Holiday Tours, L.C.
    Tex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)December 23, 2009

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. 2004); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 821-22 (Tex. 1997).

  9. Julio & Sons Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
    591 F. Supp. 2d 651 S.D. New YorkDecember 17, 2008

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.2004) (“A liability insurer is obligated to defend a suit if the facts alleged in the pleadings *661 would give rise to any claim within the coverage of the policy.”); accord Admiral Ins. Co. v.

  10. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance v. Opheim
    92 F. Supp. 3d 539 N.D. TexasFebruary 20, 2015

    American Indemnity Company, 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004) (citation omitted). This requires demonstrating that the damages both occurred during the policy period and are of a kind covered by the policy. See Employers Casualty Company v.

  11. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Kipp Flores Architects, LLC
    602 F. App'x 985 Fifth CircuitFebruary 26, 2015 Unpublished

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex.2004) (“It may sometimes be necessary to defer resolution of indemnity issues until the liability litigation is resolved.”)- Therefore, courts are not precluded from making factual findings in coverage actions.

  12. Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc.
    56 F. Supp. 3d 840 N.D. TexasOctober 28, 2014

    American Indemnity Company, 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. 2004)). .The court also referenced Fifth Circuit interpretations of Texas law holding that “the words ‘arising out of,’ when used within an insurance policy, are broad, general and comprehensive terms effecting

  13. U.S. Env't, L.P. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
    388 F. Supp. 3d 807 S.D. TexasJuly 7, 2017

    Co. , 141 S.W.3d 198 , 203 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Lindsey , 997 S.W.2d 153 , 156 (Tex. 1999) ).

  14. Eleanor Crose v. Humana Insurance Company
    823 F.3d 344 Fifth CircuitMay 23, 2016

    American Indemnity Co., the Texas Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting “due to” in an insurance policy exclusion. 141 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.2004). The court determined that “due to” is “more than simple cause in fact ...

  15. GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO. v. Gulf Coast Marine Associates, Inc.
    252 S.W.3d 450 Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)February 14, 2008

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.2004). But we strictly construe exceptions or limitations on liability against the insurer and in favor of the insured. See, e.g., Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v.

  16. Tucker v. Allstate Texas Lloyds Insurance Co.
    180 S.W.3d 880 Tex. App. Ct., 6th Dist. (Texarkana)December 6, 2005

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.2004). An insurer’s duty to defend is determined solely by the allegations in the pleadings and the language of the insurance policy. King v. Dallas Fire Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 185, 187 (Tex.2002).

  17. Gemini Insurance v. S & J Diving, Inc.
    464 F. Supp. 2d 641 S.D. TexasAugust 25, 2006

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.2004) (citing National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex.1997)).

  18. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.
    293 S.W.3d 322 Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)July 21, 2009

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.2004) citing Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153, 158 (Tex.1999). To determine this intent, we generally limit our inquiry to the "four corners" of the policy. See Esquivel v.

  19. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Slay Eng'g, Tex. Multi-Chem, & Huser Constr. Co.
    335 F. Supp. 3d 874 W.D. TexasAugust 15, 2018

    Co. , 141 S.W.3d 198 , 203 (Tex. 2004) (citation omitted).

  20. Tejas Specialty Group, Inc. and Tejas Specialty Concrete Coatings, LLC v. United Specialty Insurance Company
    Tex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)June 3, 2021

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex. 2004)[(op. on reh’g)]. The court must also read all parts of the policy together in order to give meaning to every sentence, clause, and word to avoid rendering part of the policy inoperative. Citigroup Inc. v. Fed. Ins.

  21. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.
    323 S.W.3d 151 Texas Supreme CourtOctober 1, 2010

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004) (concerning an insurer’s duty to defend where an insured doctors’ employee allegedly administered contaminated anesthetics); see also Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v.

  22. Pinto Technology Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon
    526 S.W.3d 428 Texas Supreme CourtMay 19, 2017

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. 2004), an insurance case). . Utica, 141 S.W.3d at 203 . . Id. . But-For Cause, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also Ford Motor Co. v.

  23. Gilbane Building Co. v. Admiral Insurance
    664 F.3d 589 Fifth CircuitDecember 13, 2011

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 201-02 (Tex.2004), and we take those facts as true, Pine Oak Builders, 279 S.W.3d at 654 .

  24. Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    154 S.W.3d 839 Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.January 20, 2005

    American Indem., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004); Reser v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 981 S.W.2d 260, 264 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no writ).

  25. Seahawk Liquidating Trust ex rel. Seahawk Drilling, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London
    810 F.3d 986 Fifth CircuitJanuary 19, 2016

    Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004). -We *992 interpret identically the terms “arising out of” and "arising from.” Am. States. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363 , 370 n. 7 (5th Cir.1998). 10 .

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list