X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this mandamus proceeding, the Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. and the Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund seek to have a suit against them transferred from Duval County to Travis County based on a contractual choice-of-venue provision in a risk-coverage agreement that is similar to an insurance contract. They assert that the agreement is a “major transaction” within the meaning of 15.020 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, a mandatory venue provision. The relators agreed to provide more than $17 million in risk coverage at a cost of $41,973 per year. The trial court declined to enforce the parties’ venue agreement without stating its reasons, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief. HOLDING:Denied. The dispute is over the aggregate stated value of the fund’s promise. The fund contends that this should be measured by the coverage limits. In an insurance arrangement, the insurer is not promising to compensate the insured for an actual, expensive loss in exchange for the relatively small, individual premium paid by the insured. Rather, the insurer is assuming the risk that death or property loss may occur in exchange for the premium payment. Moreover, the parties contemplate that the insured will perform his promise to pay premiums even though the condition to the duty of the insured never occurs. The consideration to be valued is the undertaking of the risk that insured losses might occur. Benavides Independent School District agreed to pay what is in essence a premium of $41,973. That is the value the parties assigned to the risks the fund assumed. The fund and TASB argue that this court held in Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd, 997 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1999), that insurance policy coverage limits are the consideration an insurer gives in exchange for premium payments. The issue in Kidd was whether an insurer was entitled to enforce a contractual provision in an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy, requiring any damages paid under that policy to be offset by the amount of any benefits paid to the insured under a personal-injury-protection policy. The agreement to provide PIP coverage of up to a certain amount for the insured was consideration for the additional amount of premium paid. The promise to indemnify an insured if an injury occurs is the consideration for the premiums paid. The court concludes that the trial court did not err in refusing to enforce the contractual choice of venue provision under 15.020. OPINION:Priscilla R. Owen, J.; Green and Johnson, JJ., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.