This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry’s only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
In a significant insurance coverage ruling, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs’ judgment against an insured had not been the product of a “fully adversarial proceeding” because the parties had “entered into an agreement” that had “eliminated any meaningful incentive” for the insured to contest the claims. As a result, the court also ruled, the judgment that followed was not enforceable or admissible as evidence in the plaintiffs’ subsequent suit against the insured’s insurance carrier as judgment creditors and as the insured’s assignees. Finally, the court also decided that, in such a lawsuit against an insurer, the parties could cure any defect in the underlying litigation by litigating “any disputed underlying issues with the benefit of full adversity.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]