Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
236 S.W.3d 765 | Texas Supreme Court | 2007
Holding Summary
Co-primary insurers with pro rata clauses have no direct right of contribution or subrogation against each other when one overpays a settlement, as the insured cannot enforce additional recovery once fully indemnified.
A fully indemnified insured has no right to recover additional pro rata portion of settlement.
Related Cases
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.
EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.
A supplier cannot enforce a payment obligation against a project owner based on a letter offering optional direct payment arrangements, where the supplier's own deposition testimony demonstrates it never understood the letter as a binding contract.
Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.
Texas Constitution's usury provision applies only to lending transactions, not to judicially-awarded prejudgment interest, which derives from court order rather than commercial agreement.
El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P. F/K/A El Paso South Texas, L.P. v. Mastec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc.
Contract clearly allocated all risk of undiscovered foreign pipeline crossings to contractor despite owner's due diligence obligation, as contractor assumed full responsibility for site conditions notwithstanding any owner representations.
Chilton Insurance Co. v. Pate & Pate Enterprises, Inc.
A general contractor that judicially admits owing a subcontractor a specific credit amount and continues treating the contract as valid waives its right to claim the subcontractor's breach excuses non-payment.