# State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. S.S.

> Texas Supreme Court · September 10, 1993 · 858 S.W.2d 374

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676693

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. S.S. & G.W., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 10, 1993
- **Citations:** 858 S.W.2d 374; 1993 WL 233452
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cornyn
- **Judges:** Cornyn, Enoch, Gonzalez, Hecht, Hightower, Opinions, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 1,017 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/9676693

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding in a summary judgment context that when the order granting the summary judgment explicitly states the grounds relied upon in granting the summary judgment and the underlying motion contains other independent grounds for the same relief, the summary judgment can be affi…
- stating that in Maupin the court "held that when the insured’s acts were voluntary and intentional and the injury is the natural result of the act, the damage was not an accident within the meaning of the policy even though the injury may have been unexpected, unforeseen and u…
- stating that when there are multiple grounds for summary - 11 - 04-10-00617-CV judgment and the order does not specify the ground on which the summary judgment was granted, appealing party must negate all grounds on appeal
- explaining that when the district court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify the ground relied on for the ruling, summary judgment will be affirmed on appeal if any of the theories advanced are meritorious
- stating that when there are multiple grounds for summary judgment and the order does not specify the ground on which the summary judgment was granted, the appealing party must negate all grounds on appeal

## Opinion text

CORNYN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the court that a fact issue exists regarding whether G.W. knew with substantial certainty that his actions would result in the transmission of herpes to S.S., and that there is no evidence from which we can infer intent in this case. See Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (1993) (discussing the substantial certainty standard in cases alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress). Thus, I join in parts I and II of the court’s opinion.
I disagree, however, with the court’s refusal to consider alternative grounds upon which the trial court’s summary judgment *383 can be affirmed. Therefore, I join in part II of JUSTICE HECHT’S opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676693. Public record. Not legal advice.