6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1911–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Lloyds v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010See State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson , 290 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. 2009). 2010See State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex.2009).' As in this case, appraisal provisions generally provide that either the insui’ed or the insurer may demand an appraisal pursuant to the terms of the policy. | 2 | 2 |
Humphrey v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartfordgreen1 sentence2013In Humphrey, for example, the policy provided: “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements, [including examination under oath,] nor unless commenced within two years next after the fire.” 231 S.W. at 752 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Members Mutual Insurance Company v. Cutaiagreen2 sentences1983Co. v. Cutaia, 476 S.W.2d 278, 278-79 (Tex.1972). 1983Co. v. Cutaia, 476 S.W.2d 278, 278-79 (Tex.1972). | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1983The relevant portion of the policy states that “the Insured shall, if claim is made or suit is brought against the Insured, forward to the Company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him .... ” The policy further provides, “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with .... ” A similar policy provision requiring the forwarding of suit papers has been held to establish a condition precedent to recovery on the policy. 1 Weaver v. Hart 1983The relevant portion of the policy states that "the Insured shall, if claim is made or suit is brought against the Insured, forward to the Company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him...." The policy further provides, "No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with...." A similar policy provision requiring the forwarding of suit papers has been held to establish a condition precedent to recovery on the policy. [1] Weaver v. Hartfo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Philadelphia Underwriters' Agency of Fire Insurance Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Driggers
green
2 sentences1989Philadelphia Underwriters’ Agency v. Driggers, 111 Tex. 392 , 238 S.W. 633 (1922). 1989Philadelphia Underwriters’ Agency v. Driggers, 111 Tex. 392 , 238 S.W. 633 (1922). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Southern Pacific Co. v. Block Bros.
green
2 sentences1911The contention is made that prior to the time the amended petition was filed appellant was not legally in court, because it had not been sued by its proper corporate name; that the filing of the amended petition was the beginning of the suit against it; and that the court erred in refusing to give effect to the clause contained in the policy reading: “No suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity, * * * unless commenced within twelve months after the fire.” The decision of our Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Block, 8 1911The contention is made that prior to the time the amended petition was filed appellant was not legally in court, because it had not been sued by its proper corporate name; that the filing of the amended petition was the beginning of the suit against it; and that the court erred in refusing to give effect to the clause contained in the policy reading: “No suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity, * * * unless commenced within twelve months after the fire.” The decision of our Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Block, 8 | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.