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 2 courts 2000–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. McKeegreen2 sentences2003See Grain Dealers , 943 S.W.2d at 458 (stating that an insurance contract that is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation is ambiguous, and interpretation that most favors coverage for insured will be adopted). 2003See Grain Dealers , 943 S.W.2d at 458 (an insurance contract that is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation is ambiguous, and interpretation that most favors coverage for insured will be adopted). | 2 | 2 |
Petticrew v. ABB Lummus Global, Inc.green2 sentences2014However, we further explained that if “the exclusion clause uses the term ‘any insured,’ then application of the separation of insureds clause has no effect on the exclusion clause; a claim made against any insured is excluded.” Id. (citing Petticrew, 53 F.Supp.2d at 871 ; Michael Carbone, Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. 2014“If the exclusion clause uses the term ‘the insured,’ application of the separation of insureds clause requires that the term be interpreted as referring only to the insured against whom a claim is being made under the policy.” Id. (citing Commercial Standard Ins. | 1 | 4 |
Michael Carbone, Inc. v. General Accident Insurancegreen1 sentence2014Co., 937 F.Supp. 413, 420 (E.D.Pa.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Brucegreen1 sentence2009By conflating the insureds in derogation of the separation-of-insureds clause, the court deprives these clauses of meaning under the erroneous assumption that the policy’s definition of “insured” was also meant to define “Greenspoint.” The arbitrators found that Greenpoint’s general manager, comptroller, and used car sales manager were Greenspoint’s vice-principals and that they intentionally and maliciously defamed Martinez “without even the pretense of a belief in the truth of their accusations.” “A vice-principal represents the corporation in its corporate capacity, and includes persons who | 1 | 1 |
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Kiefergreen1 sentence2003Co. v. Kiefer, 984 F.Supp. 988, 996 (E.D.La.1997). 4 If the exclusion clause uses the term “the insured,” application of the separation of insureds clause requires that the term be interpreted as referring only to the insured against whom a claim is being made under the policy. | 1 | 1 |
West American Insurance Company v. Av & Sgreen1 sentence2003Co. v. AV & S, 145 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir.1998) (stating "that because the Separation of Insureds clause treats each named insured separately as the only insured, the term 'any insured’ in the Auto Exclusion Clause only applies to the single insured that actually owned the vehicle”); Transport Indem. | 1 | 1 |
Transport Indem. Co. v. Wyattgreen1 sentence2003Co. v. Wyatt, 417 So.2d 568, 571 (Ala. 1982) (agreeing with the trial court that the term "any insured” is ambiguous; interpreting "any insured” "to mean only singularly 'any one of the insureds’ ”); Worcester Mut. his. | 1 | 1 |
Silverball Amusement, Inc. v. Utah Home Fire Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2000See 842 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (W.D.Ark.1994), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1476 (8th Cir.1994). 2000See 842 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (W.D.Ark.1994), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1476 (8th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Silverball Amusement, Inc. v. Utah Home Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2000See 842 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (W.D.Ark.1994), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1476 (8th Cir.1994). 2000See 842 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (W.D.Ark.1994), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1476 (8th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. American General Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2014However, we further explained that if “the exclusion clause uses the term ‘any insured,’ then application of the separation of insureds clause has no effect on the exclusion clause; a claim made against any insured is excluded.” Id. (citing Petticrew, 53 F.Supp.2d at 871 ; Michael Carbone, Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. 2003Effect of a Separation of Insureds Clause on Exclusions This is apparently a case of first impression under Texas law regarding the application of a separation of insureds clause to a policy provision that refers to “ any insured.” However, Texas courts have construed the applicability of a separation of insureds clause to a policy provision that refers to “ the insured.” In Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. American General Insurance Co ., 455 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1970), the Texas Supreme Court considered the effect of a similar “severability of interests” clause on an employee exclusion for “ | 4 | 2003–2014 |
King v. Dallas Fire Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2004The court stated that having Lopez’s intent control that determination of whether there was an occurrence or exclusion as to King overlooks both the separation-of-insureds clause and the provision that intent to cause bodily injury is determined “from the standpoint of the insured.” Id. 2003Co. , 85 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2002), the Texas Supreme Court again interpreted the separation of insureds clause in a commercial liability policy. | 4 | 2003–2004 |
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Maxey
green
2 sentences2014In Maxey , we addressed “a case of first impression under Texas law regarding the application of a separation of insureds clause to a policy exclusion that refers to ‘any insured.’ ” 1 Id. at 211 . 2014Id. at 214 (citing Petticrew v. ABB Lummus Global, Inc., 53 F.Supp.2d 864, 871 (E.D.La.1999)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.