No. 13-0080
Click for Official Page
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
Tracking 2 articles about this case.
June 16, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 18 other cases.
February 16, 2014
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:
Justice Boyd delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Devine joined. PDF
Chief Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green and Justice Brown joined.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF
| 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: | 407th District Court |
| County: | Bexar |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Renée Forinash McElhaney |
| Trial Docket: | 2007-CI-14556 |
| 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 disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-05-22 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2015-05-08 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2015-05-08 | Dissenting opinion issued. | Issued | |
| 2015-05-08 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment affirmed | |
| 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 disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-02-14 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2014-01-13 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-12-17 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-12-17 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-12-12 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-11-05 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-11-05 | Notice of Appearance | ||
| 2013-11-05 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 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 | Amicus Curiae Letter Received | ||
| 2013-04-08 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 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 |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Lynd Company |
|
Respondent | |||||||
| RSUI Indemnity Company |
|
Petitioner |
| Amicus Curiae | Counsel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies |
|
||
| National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices |
|
||
| Axis Surplus Insurance Company |
|
||
| Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America |
|
||
| Texas Policyholder Coverage Lawyers |
|
||
| Texas Hotel & Lodging Association |
|
||
| Texas Apartment Association, Inc. |
|
||
| San Antonio Apartment Association, Inc. |
|
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.
