law insurance coverage disputes

RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN INSURANCE
COVERAGE DISPUTES

Lancer Ins. Co. v. Garcia Holiday Tours (Tex. 2011),
No.
10-0096  (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(Opinion by Justice David Medina) (insurance coverage, indemnity, liability
for communication of disease by bus driver to passenger)(no insurance coverage of liability for damages
caused by infection of passenger by ill driver under carrier's policy)
   The question in this appeal is
whether the transmission of a communicable disease from the driver
of a motor vehicle to a passenger
is a covered loss under a business auto policy, which affords
coverage for accidental bodily injuries resulting from the vehicle’s use. The issue is one of first impression in
this state and perhaps the country. The parties advise that they have found no similar reported cases.
   The trial court concluded that the policy covered this type of occurrence and rendered summary judgment
that the insurance carrier owed a
duty to indemnify the insured. The court of appeals agreed that the
policy might provide coverage for such a claim but reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case
to the trial court to resolve a factual dispute about whether the passengers had contracted the disease while
in the vehicle. 308 S.W.3d 35, 47 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009). Because we conclude that
communicable diseases are not an insured risk under this particular policy, we reverse the judgment
below and render judgment for the insurance carrier.
    
Conclusion: We conclude that the transmission of a communicable disease from a bus driver to his
passengers was
not a risk assumed by the insurance carrier under this business auto policy
because the passengers’ injuries did not result from the vehicle’s use but rather from the bus company’s use
of an
unhealthy driver. The bus, itself, in its capacity as a mode of transportation, did not produce, and
was not a substantial factor in producing, the passengers’ injuries. The court of appeals’ judgment is
accordingly reversed and judgment rendered that the passengers, bus company, and driver take nothing on
their
indemnity claim against the insurance carrier.
CASE DETAILS: LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY v. GARCIA HOLIDAY TOURS, ET AL.; from Jim Wells
County; 4th district (04-08-00839-CV, 308 SW3d 35, 12-23-09)    
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice David Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. [
pdf]
Here is the
link to e-briefs in case no. 10-0096 LANCER INS. CO. v. GARCIA HOLIDAY TOURS  [including an
amicus brief by Property Casualty Insurers Association of America]  

Burlington Northern and Santa Railway Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (Tex. 2011).,
No.
10-0064 (Tex. Feb. 25, 2011)(per curiam)(insurance law, duty to defend, duty to indemnify)
In this insurance coverage dispute The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) sought a declaratory
judgment that National Union Fire Insurance Company owed duties to defend and indemnify BNSF in a personal injury suit
resulting from a collision between one of its trains and an automobile. The trial court granted National Union’s motion for
summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. ___ S.W.3d ___. Because the court of appeals did not consider evidence
extrinsic to the pleadings and insurance policy in determining whether National Union owed a duty to indemnify, we reverse
the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.
THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY F/K/A THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; from El Paso County; 8th
district (08-06-00022-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-09-09)    
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument,
the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion [6-page opinion in
pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in Case No. 10-0064
THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. v. NAT. UNION
FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA   

Mid-Continental Casualty Co. v. Glober Enercom Mgmt, Inc., No. 09-0744 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)
(
insurance coverage, exclusions, contract formation, contract construction)
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY v. GLOBAL ENERCOM MANAGEMENT, INC.; from Harris County;
14th district (14-07-01006-CV, 293 SW3d 322, 07-21-09)  
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and
renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [
pdf]
View
Electronic Briefs in 09-0744 MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO. v. GLOBAL ENERCOM MANAGEMENT,
INC.


COURTS OF APPEALS

08-0170  
FG HOLDINGS, INC., FG INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A/K/A FINANCIAL GUARDIAN AND TRANS-GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LONDON AMERICAN RISK SPECIALISTS, INC. AND GUARANTY INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC. F/K/A TIMBERLINE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; from Jefferson County; 9th district (
09-05-
00522-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-13-07, pet denied Jun 2008) (insurance coverage dispute, summary judgment)
2 petitions