Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
236 S.W.3d 765 | Texas Supreme Court | 2007
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Two insurance companies both provided primary coverage for the same insured. When settling a lawsuit for $1.5 million, one insurer paid $1.35 million while the other paid only $150,000. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the insurer who overpaid cannot sue the other insurer for contribution or reimbursement. Once the injured party is fully paid, the insurance dispute is over—neither insurer can recover from the other.
Key Takeaways
- •If you're named as an additional insured on multiple policies, understand that co-primary insurers cannot force each other to split settlement costs equally after the fact
- •Don't rely on one insurer to recover overpayments from another insurer—the settlement amount is final once the injured party accepts it
- •When multiple insurers cover the same risk, negotiate settlement contributions upfront before paying, not afterward
A fully indemnified insured has no right to recover additional pro rata portion of settlement.
Frequently Asked Question
Can one insurance company force another to split a settlement payment if they paid more than their fair share?
No. Once the injured party is fully compensated, the insurers cannot sue each other for contribution or reimbursement. The insurer who overpaid has no legal claim against the underpaying insurer. This is why it's critical to agree on settlement amounts before paying, not after.
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.