Salmonella Streak Affecting Hundreds Deemed Single Occurrence

January 26th, 2021 By Eric S. Peabody

Patrons of the Pasha Mediterranean Grill in San Antonio had to stomach an unsavory outcome in their bid to obtain multiple occurrence limits in Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Mediterranean Grill & Kabob Inc., 2020 WL 6536163 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2020). Between August 29 and September 1, 2018, nearly 200 cases of food poisoning from salmonella bacteria were reported after the patrons ate at Pasha. Hummus prepared at the restaurant was believed to be the source of
Read the full article…


More (Or Less?) on Indemnity: A Brief Primer on Texas Construction Anti-Indemnity Act

July 26th, 2020 By Eric S. Peabody

The Texas Construction Anti-Indemnity Act, codified in Subchapter C of Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code, renders void certain construction indemnity agreements that purport to indemnify the indemnitee for its own fault, even if that fault is shared or contributory. While most states now have some type of anti-indemnity statute, Texas is one of only a handful of states whose statutes void related additional-insured procurement and policy provisions as well. The Act applies to any “construction contract” for a
Read the full article…


Is Eight Enough, Part 2 – Texas Supreme Court Justices Signal Skepticism of Extrinsic Evidence Exception

February 9th, 2020 By Eric S. Peabody

On January 8, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court heard argument on a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in State Farm Lloyds v. Richards, 784 Fed. App’x 247 (5th Cir. 2019), certified question accepted (Sept. 13, 2019), which asks: Is extrinsic evidence permissible—and the strict eight-corners rule inapplicable—in determining the duty to defend if the policy does not require defense of groundless, false or fraudulent allegations? Jeff Glass previously blogged about this certified question here.
Read the full article…


In Win for Insurers, Court Rejects Prejudice Limitation on Express Claim Reporting Condition

August 18th, 2019 By Eric S. Peabody

Following a hail storm in April 2016, insured Blanco West Properties failed to discover and report damage to the roof of its commercial building until October-November 2017. Blanco West’s insurer, Arch, denied the claim based on a policy endorsement that required hail-related claims to be brought within one year of the event. Appealing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Arch, the insured argued that Arch was required to demonstrate it was prejudiced by Blanco West’s failure
Read the full article…


“You Can’t Make Me”—Court Recognizes Limits on Authority to Order Specific Adjuster’s Mediation Attendance

July 12th, 2019 By Eric S. Peabody

In the course of litigation stemming from a motor vehicle accident, an El Paso trial court ordered the parties and their representatives “with full settlement authority” to mediation.  The defendant’s insurer, Allstate, sent a representative who was not the handling adjuster to the mediation.  The mediation was unsuccessful.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel attendance of the adjuster handling the claim at a second mediation, which the court granted.  The adjuster sought mandamus relief from the trial court’s
Read the full article…


When Roadmaps are a BAD Thing . . .

April 22nd, 2019 By Eric S. Peabody

Unfortunately for insurance professionals dealing with claims in multiple jurisdictions, the state-specific rules regarding reservations-of-rights (“ROR”) letters (aka coverage positions letters, non-waiver letters, etc.) can be as varied as insurance laws themselves. Further uncertainty is created because most of these “rules” are judicially created, are rarely set forth in absolute terms, and often require context that may or may not be evident in the scant case law addressing them.  Because some jurisdictions treat the failure to properly reserve rights with
Read the full article…


You Can Lead an Insured to Water but Can You Make Him Settle?

January 27th, 2019 By Eric S. Peabody

Policy Creates Agency Relationship for Settlement An unpublished Texas opinion that has received some national attention in “case roundups” at the end of 2018, McCain v. Promise House, Inc., No. 05-16-00714-CV, 2018 WL 2042009 (Tex. App.–Dallas, May 2, 2018, no pet.), addressed the effect of an insured’s refusal to sign off on a settlement agreement desired and approved by its liability carrier. Glen McCain sued Promise House, a residential social services care facility, after his eleven-year-old son was physically and
Read the full article…


Stormy Weather — Insured Sings the Burden of Proof Blues

December 3rd, 2018 By Eric S. Peabody

Insured’s Failure to Support Causation and Segregation with Evidence Results in Win for Carrier Insureds Richard and Linda Seim filed suit against their homeowners’ insurance carrier Allstate for damage to their home following a storm in August 2013. Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 02-16-00050-CV, 2018 WL 5832106, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth  Nov. 8, 2018, n.p.h.). Allstate had investigated and, despite finding some interior water damage to the home, had denied the claim because there was no evidence of
Read the full article…


Federal Courts Sketch Roadmap for Chapter 542A Removals

October 22nd, 2018 By Eric S. Peabody

As many commentators have noted, the addition of Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542A—the so-called “Hailstorm Bill”—has substantially reduced the volume of weather-related lawsuits against insurance companies since September 2017. In addition to imposing strict timelines for pre-suit notice and inspections and curbing potential penalties and attorneys’ fees awards, Chapter 542A affects the parties to, and potential venue of, a lawsuit by allowing the carrier to assume any liability an “agent” might have to the claimant (with certain exceptions) for the
Read the full article…


A Premises Liability Primer

July 30th, 2018 By Eric S. Peabody

A person injured on another’s property may have either a negligence claim or a premises-liability claim against the property owner or occupier. When the injury is the result of a contemporaneous, negligent activity on the property, ordinary negligence principles apply; when the injury is the result of the property’s condition rather than an activity, premises liability principles apply. Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Jenkins, 478 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Tex. 2016).  Although they are related, the theories are not interchangeable, and “a
Read the full article…