11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc.green2 sentences2010Ass’n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 600, 606 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.), for our holding that the policy “obligates the insurer to defend its insured, not to provide a pro rata defense.” 7 ). 2010Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 600, 606 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.), for our holding that the policy "obligates the insurer to defend its insured, not to provide a pro rata defense." [7] ). | 3 | 3 |
Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.red1 sentence2023Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 430 (Tex. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Traders & General Insurance v. Hicks Rubber Co.green2 sentences2007Id. at 147. 2007Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
HARDWARE DEALERS MUT. F. INS. CO. v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
green
2 sentences2009Exch., the Texas Supreme Court recognized that with regard to automobile insurance, three kinds of “other insurance” clauses have developed as devices to limit coverage or liability: (1) a pro rata clause, which restricts liability upon concurring insurers to an apportionment basis, (2) an excess clause, which restricts liability upon an insurer to excess coverage after another insurer has paid up to its policy limits, and (3) an escape clause, which avoids all liability if other insurance exists. 444 S.W.2d 583 , 586 (Tex.1969). 2009Exch., the Texas Supreme Court recognized that with regard to automobile insurance, three kinds of “other insurance” clauses have developed as devices to limit coverage or liability: (1) a pro rata clause, which restricts liability upon concurring insurers to an apportionment basis, (2) an excess clause, which restricts liability upon an insurer to excess coverage after another insurer has paid up to its policy limits, and (3) an escape clause, which -5- 04-09-00322-CV avoids all liability if other insurance exists. 444 S.W.2d 583 , 586 (Tex. 1969). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
CNA Lloyds of Texas v. St. Paul Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1999Cf. CNA Lloyds, 902 S.W.2d at 661 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Harrison
green
1 sentence1994The court held that the pro rata clause was inapplicable because although the policies covered the same properly to an extent, they were not in favor of the same party and did not cover the same interest. 205 S.W.2d at 420 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Republic Ins. Co. v. American Ice Co.
neutral
1 sentence1946Co. v. American Ice Co., Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 329 , pt. 4), and our view in this respect is strengthened by the pro rata clause provided for in appellant’s policy. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
King v. Patterson
green
1 sentence1925Again, in King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1 , 164 S. W. 1191 , the Tennessee court said that the equity of marshaling as between prior and subsequent attaching creditors must yield to previously acquired legal rights, and the court enforced the liens of the attaching creditors in the order of their'Priority, and not according to the pro rata rule adopted in the Gilliam Case. . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.