7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Trevinogreen2 sentences2018The ANPAC policy at issue here required a person seeking coverage to “[c]ooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of any claim or suit.” The language of the cooperation clause is identical to that in Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Trevino, 202 S.W.3d 811 , 815– 16 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied), where the court held the clause was a condition precedent to coverage. 2018See Martinez, 343 S.W.3d at 929 ; Trevino, 202 S.W.3d at 816 . | 1 | 2 |
Martinez v. ACCC Insurance Co.green1 sentence2018See Martinez, 343 S.W.3d at 929 ; Trevino, 202 S.W.3d at 816 . | 1 | 1 |
Utica National Insurance Co. of Texas v. American Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2006See Utica, 141 S.W.3d at 202 . 2006See Utica, 141 S.W.3d at 202 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ahmadi v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2003As in the present case, the insurance policy in question contained both a cooperation clause and a clause indicating the company “may also require any person making a claim to submit to questioning under oath and sign the transcript.” Ahmadi, 22 P.3d at 577 . 2003As in the present case, the insurance policy in question contained both a cooperation clause and a clause indicating the company “may also require any person making a claim to submit to questioning under oath and sign the transcript.” Ahmadi , 22 P.3d at 577 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
United States Casualty Company v. Elmer L. Schlein
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 172 . 2018Id. at 172–73. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P.
green
1 sentence2010Gilbert contends it was prejudiced because Underwriters’ actions deprived it of the opportunity to make an informed decision about which risk to take: *137 (1) assert the immunity defense and risk Underwriters’ denying coverage for the breach of contract claim, or (2) refuse to assert the immunity defense and risk Underwriters’ denying coverage because Gilbert breached the cooperation clause. 12 The court of appeals concluded that Underwriters did not assume control of Gilbert’s defense, 245 S.W.3d at 87 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gates Formed Fibre Products, Inc. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 348 . 5 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.