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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re United Fire Lloydsgreen2 sentences2018Co., 395 S.W.3d 229, 237 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding) (“In a case where an insured asserts a claim for uninsured/underinsured benefits, abatement of the extra-contractual claims is required in most instances.”); United Fire Lloyds, 327 S.W.3d at 256 (applying Brainard to issue of abatement and concluding insurer should not be required to incur litigation expenses on claims that could be rendered moot by the portion of the trial related to UIM benefits). 2012See In re United Fire Lloyds, 327 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2010, orig. proceeding); U.S. Fire Ins. | 5 | 5 |
In Re Millergreen1 sentence2021Co., No. 07-11-00396-CV, 2011 WL 4916303 , at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 17, 2011, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus because complaint was not preserved but –7– agreeing that abatement of extra-contractual claims is required in most instances when an insured asserts claim to uninsured motorist benefits); In re Miller, 202 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (upheld severance in a UM case). | 1 | 1 |
in Re: State Farm Automobile Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2018Co., 395 S.W.3d 229, 237 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding) (“In a case where an insured asserts a claim for uninsured/underinsured benefits, abatement of the extra-contractual claims is required in most instances.”); United Fire Lloyds, 327 S.W.3d at 256 (applying Brainard to issue of abatement and concluding insurer should not be required to incur litigation expenses on claims that could be rendered moot by the portion of the trial related to UIM benefits). | 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 Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.