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.
10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2008The trial court entered judgment in favor of APA on the waiver and estoppel findings for $616,468.55. 2 Relying on what has come to be referred to as the Wilkinson exception, see Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 601 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App-Austin 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court of appeals affirmed on the basis of waiver and estoppel. 187 S.W.3d 91 . 2008The trial court entered judgment in favor of APA on the waiver and estoppel findings for $616,468.55. 2 Relying on what has come to be referred to as the Wilkinson exception, see Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 601 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App-Austin 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court of appeals affirmed on the basis of waiver and estoppel. 187 S.W.3d 91 . | 3 | 3 |
Tull v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companiesgreen2 sentences2006“Application of the doctrines of estoppel or waiver under the Wilkinson exception requires a showing that the insured was prejudiced by the insurer’s conduct.” Tull, 146 S.W.3d at 695 . 2006“Application of the doctrines of estoppel or waiver under the Wilkinson exception requires a showing that the insured was prejudiced by the insurer’s conduct.” Tull, 146 S.W.3d at 695 . | 2 | 2 |
State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2008See Williams, 791 S.W.2d at 553 (“unless a conflict of interests or other harm is clear and unmistakable, we are inclined to the view that the insured must show how he was harmed”). 2008See Williams, 791 S.W.2d at 553 ("unless a conflict of interests or other harm is clear and unmistakable, we are inclined to the view that the insured must show how he was harmed"). | 1 | 6 |
Katerndahl v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . 2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . | 1 | 6 |
Walker v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2014See Walker, 924 S.W.2d at 377 . | 1 | 1 |
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Newell Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2006Co., 566 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, writ refd n.r.e.) (same). 13 We therefore conclude and hold that there is more than a mere scintilla of evidence that the Association was prejudiced by Ulico’s actions, that the Wilkinson factors have been met, and that Wilkinson applies under these facts. 2006Co., 566 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, writ refd n.r.e.) (same). 13 We therefore conclude and hold that there is more than a mere scintilla of evidence that the Association was prejudiced by Ulico’s actions, that the Wilkinson factors have been met, and that Wilkinson applies under these facts. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005Co. , 961 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams , 960 S.W.2d 781, 785-86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. dism’d by agr.); Paradigm Ins. 2005Co. , 961 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams , 960 S.W.2d 781, 785-86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. dism’d by agr.); Paradigm Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodriquez v. Texas Farmers Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . 2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . | 5 | 2004–2007 |
Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
green
2 sentences2008The trial court entered judgment in favor of APA on the waiver and estoppel findings for $616,468.55. 2 Relying on what has come to be referred to as the Wilkinson exception, see Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 601 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App-Austin 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court of appeals affirmed on the basis of waiver and estoppel. 187 S.W.3d 91 . 2008The trial court entered judgment in favor of APA on the waiver and estoppel findings for $616,468.55. 2 Relying on what has come to be referred to as the Wilkinson exception, see Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 601 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App-Austin 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court of appeals affirmed on the basis of waiver and estoppel. 187 S.W.3d 91 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2006The court did not address the Wilkinson exception in McGuire because it was not "outcome-determinative.” Id. 6 . 2006The court did not address the Wilkinson exception in McGuire because it was not "outcome-determinative.” Id. 6 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence1980This rule is based on the “ . . . apparent conflict of interest that might arise when the insurer represents the insured in a lawsuit against the insured and simultaneously formulates its defense against the insured for noncover-age.” Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Acel Delivery Service, Inc., supra. As appellant has assumed appellee Wilkinson’s defense of Mrs. Pena Garza’s suit with knowledge of facts which indicate possible noncoverage, unless it can show an effective reservation of rights or non-waiver agreement, it must now provide coverage for him. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.