Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Louis Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds and Raul Pulidogreen1 sentence2021We rejected such a contention in Republic Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., holding in that case that an insurer owes interest on the amount of the claim it did not promptly pay when it makes a partial payment. 35 The phrase “must be paid by the insurer” in the definition of “claim” includes the amount of the claim and “limits ‘claim’ to the amount ultimately determined to be owed, which of course would be net of any partial payments made prior to that determination.”36 We explained that “[t]his encourages insurers to pay the undisputed portion of a claim early, 32 569 S.W.3d 304, 3 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Republic Lloydsgreen1 sentence2015See id. at 359-360 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Acadia Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2010Id. [5] To date, Security has paid approximately $650,000 on the undisputed portion of the claim; Waloon maintains this is an underpayment of the claim. [6] Emphasis added. [7] The Texas Supreme Court has stated that “limiting appraisal to damages and not liability is surely still correct.” State Farm Lloyds , 290 S.W.3d at 889–90. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2010Id. [5] To date, Security has paid approximately $650,000 on the undisputed portion of the claim; Waloon maintains this is an underpayment of the claim. [6] Emphasis added. [7] The Texas Supreme Court has stated that “limiting appraisal to damages and not liability is surely still correct.” State Farm Lloyds , 290 S.W.3d at 889–90. 2010The court further explained that “in most cases appraisal can be structured in a way that decides the amount of loss without deciding any liability questions.” Id. at 894 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Liberty National Fire Insurance Co. v. Akin
green
1 sentence2003The present case is distinguishable from Akin , in which the supreme court held that severance and abatement was not required in a case in which “settlement negotiations” involved only the payment by the insurer of the undisputed portion of the claim. 927 S.W.2d at 630 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Preston v. Grant
green
1 sentence1921In Preston v. Grant, 34 Vt. 201 , where the party making a tender upon a promissory note said that he tendered the sum offered as the balance due upon the note, it was held that there was nothing in this language *1021 that could fairly convey the idea to the party to whom the tender was made that it was offered upon the condition that if he took it he did so in satisfaction of the note, and that his acceptance of the sum so offered did not constitute an accord and satisfaction as a matter of law. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.