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:Shannon Cain was a passenger in a car that was involved in a single car accident. The car was driven by Wesley McNew and insured by Safeco Lloyds Insurance Co. Cain suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident. Safeco repeatedly offered Cain the policy limits of settlement. Cain did not accept. Cain sued McNew for negligence and Ford Motor Co. for negligence and products liability. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, Safeco provided a defense for McNew. The jury found McNew liable and awarded more than $4 million in damages. The jury found no liability on the part of Ford. Cain, as assignee of McNew, then filed this suit against Safeco. Cain asserted causes of action for negligent defense, negligence, bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Safeco filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted it. An appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. In his first issue, Cain contended that Safeco’s motion for summary judgment failed to address his causes of action for negligent defense, negligence, insurance code violations and bad faith. As to the bad-faith claim, Cain asserted in his petition that Safeco breached its duty of good faith owed to McNew. The court agreed with Cain that Safeco did not move for summary judgment on Cain’s common-law bad-faith claim. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Cain’s claim for common-law bad faith. The court, however, found that Safeco’s motion for summary judgment, addressed Cain’s remaining claims of violations of Texas Insurance Code Art. 21.21, negligence and negligent defense. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on those grounds. The court also held that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent defense by an insured against his insurer. Under the Stowers doctrine, Safeco was required to exercise that degree of ordinary care and diligence which an ordinary prudent person would exercise in the management of his own business in responding to settlement demands within policy limits. The summary judgment evidence, the court stated, established that Cain never made a settlement demand which would have triggered the Stowers duty. The evidence also showed that Cain refused Safeco’s repeated offers to settle for the policy limits. Through its summary judgment evidence, Safeco conclusively established that it met its obligations to McNew with respect to settlement of a covered claim. Finally, the court found that Cain failed to preserve error on his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel production of documents. OPINION:Bridges, J.; Whittington, Bridges and Lang-Miers, JJ.

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.