# State Farm Life Insurance Co v. Beaston

> Texas Supreme Court · October 27, 1995 · 907 S.W.2d 430

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676141

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Ted H. Heaton, III, Petitioners, v. Terri BEASTON, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 27, 1995
- **Citations:** 907 S.W.2d 430; 1995 WL 385498
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Phillips
- **Judges:** Owen, Gammage, Gonzalez, Hecht, Cornyn, Enoch, Phillips, Spector, Hightower
- **Cited by:** 393 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676141

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after courts apply canons of interpretation should policy language be construed against the insurer in a manner that favors coverage
- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after court applies canons of interpretation should policy’s language be construed against insurer in manner that favors coverage.
- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after courts apply canons of interpretation should policy’s language be construed against insurer in manner that favors coverage.
- explaining that section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code requires a party recovering damages to be entitled to attorney's fees

## Opinion text

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
delivered a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by SPECTOR, Justice.
I agree with the Court in most respects. But for many of the same reasons as the dissent, I believe that the insurance policy was ambiguous and, consequently, that the court of appeals was correct in affirming the trial court’s judgment that State Farm owed Terri the proceeds of the policy as a matter of law.
Therefore, I note my dissent to Part II of the Court’s opinion concerning the policy, while joining in Parts III, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion concerning mental anguish damages, preservation of error, and attorney’s fees. I would render judgment that Terri recover only the policy benefits, statutory attorney’s fees, and costs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676141. Public record. Not legal advice.