Supreme Court of Texas Blog: Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court

No. 13-0080
TAMES

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY v. THE LYND COMPANY

Oral argument was held on September 18, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 8, 2015. It then denied rehearing on September 11, 2015 File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 2 articles about this case.

June 16, 2014

Three opinions, one grant [Jun. 13, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 18 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:

Opinions

May 8, 2015

Boyd
Johnson
Willett
Guzman
Lehrmann
Devine

Justice Boyd delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Devine joined. PDF

Hecht
Green
Brown

Chief Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green and Justice Brown joined.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:4th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Render
COA Docket No.:04-11-00193-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Sandee Bryan Marion

Trial Court

Trial Court:407th District Court
County:Bexar
Trial Judge:Honorable Renée Forinash McElhaney
Trial Docket:2007-CI-14556

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
  This case has been waiting for a possible rehearing motion.  
2015-09-11 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Denied
2015-09-11 Mandate issued  
2015-08-25 Amicus Curiae Letter Received  
  This case was waiting for a decision about a pending motion for rehearing between June 25, 2015 and August 25, 2015.  
2015-06-25 Motion for Rehearing  
2015-06-25 Case forwarded to Court
2015-05-22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing  
2015-05-22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed   Filing granted
2015-05-08 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment affirmed
2015-05-08 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2015-05-08 Dissenting opinion issued.   Issued
  This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between September 23, 2014 and May 8, 2015.  
2014-09-23 Post submission brief filed (Petitioner)  
2014-09-19 Post submission brief filed (Respondent)  
2014-09-18 Oral argument  
2014-09-17 Exhibits in case/cause filed (Petitioner)  
2014-09-17 Exhibits in case/cause filed (Petitioner)  
2014-09-02 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2014-08-13 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2014-08-11 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2014-07-29 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2014-07-28 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2014-06-13 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
  This case was waiting for oral argument between February 14, 2014 and June 13, 2014.  
2014-02-14 Petition for Review granted
2014-02-14 Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2014-01-13 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2013-12-17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-12-17 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-12-12 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2013-11-05 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-11-05 Notice of Appearance  
2013-11-05 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-10-23 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2013-09-17 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-09-16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-08-28 Case Record Filed  
2013-08-27 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2013-08-23 Brief on the Merits Requested  
  This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between June 27, 2013 and August 23, 2013.  
2013-06-27 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2013-06-12 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2013-06-10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2013-06-10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
2013-05-24 Amicus Curiae Letter Received  
2013-05-10 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-05-09 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2013-05-09 Pro hac vice motion disposed   Filing granted
2013-05-07 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2013-05-07 Pro hac vice motion filed  
2013-04-09 Case forwarded to Court
2013-04-09 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2013-04-08 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2013-04-08 Amicus Curiae Letter Received  
2013-04-05 Amicus Curiae Brief received  
2013-04-04 Phone call from Clerk's Office
2013-04-02 Response Waiver filed  
2013-03-20 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner)  
2013-03-13 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  
2013-02-05 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2013-02-01 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
RSUI Indemnity Company
Mr. Bruce R. Wilkin
Mr. Thomas R. Phillips
Mr. David F. Johnson
Mr. Jay W. Brown
Mr. Stephen R. Wedemeyer
Mr. Douglas W. Alexander
Petitioner
The Lynd Company
Mr. Edwin Todd Lipscomb
Mr. Robert W. Loree
Mr. Thomas H. Crofts Jr.
Ms. Cassandra Pruski
Mr. Ernest Martin Jr.
Ms. Nina Cortell
Mr. Jeremy Daniel Kernodle
Respondent

Amici Curiae

Amicus Curiae Counsel
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Mr. Paul Thomas Martin
National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices
Keri A. Kish
Axis Surplus Insurance Company
Mr. Henry S. Platts Jr.
Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America
Mr. Trey Gillespie
Texas Policyholder Coverage Lawyers
Ms. Linda Marie Dedman
Texas Hotel & Lodging Association
Mr. Brendan K. McBride
Texas Apartment Association, Inc.
Mr. Brendan K. McBride
San Antonio Apartment Association, Inc.
Mr. R. David Fritsche

Construing an insurance policy that covers multiple properties hit by a single hurricane

The insured suffered losses across a number of properties during Hurricane Rita. This petition concerns how to determine the insurers' maximum liability. Is it limited to the "scheduled" value of each property under the policy, taken separately? Or do other provisions in the policy allow the insured to recover the full value of those properties, staying within other limits of the policy?

The insurer contends that the policy, as a whole, should be read as a "scheduled" policy and thus construed in line with a national body of law that would limit its liability here. The petition accuses the court of appeals of coming up with what it labels a "hybrid" policy that would lead to absurd results.

The property owner contends that the court of appeals properly construed the actual policy language agreed here, and that this policy language — not a label like "scheduled" or "hybrid" policy — is what should control the outcome.

The court of appeals heard the case en banc and divided 4-3, with one of the four justices in the majority writing separately to encourage the Court to grant review.

...
...