# State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gandy

> Texas Supreme Court · July 12, 1996 · 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 965

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679876

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Julie Kathleen GANDY, Individually and as Assignee of Ted Pearce, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 12, 1996
- **Citations:** 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 965; 925 S.W.2d 696; 1996 Tex. LEXIS 109; 1996 WL 391215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Enoch
- **Judges:** Hecht, Enoch, Phillips, Gonzalez, Cornyn, Spector, Owen, Baker, Abbott
- **Cited by:** 298 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/9679876

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that prejudgment settlement/assignment agreement "confuse[s] and distort[s]" positions of parties, and prohibiting such agreements under certain circumstances where defendant's insurer has made good faith effort to adjudicate coverage issues prior to adjudication of…
- noting that “[disputes between [the insurer] and [insured defendant] can often be expeditiously resolved in an action for declaratory judgment while [the plaintiffs] claim is pending,” and that insurers often “will assume the burden of having the issues resolved” to prevent un…
- stating that A[a] plaintiff who thinks a defendant should be covered by insurance may be willing to . . . assist in obtaining an adjudication of the insurer's responsibility@
- stating that "[a] plaintiff who thinks a defendant should be covered by insurance may be willing to . . . assist in obtaining an adjudication of the insurer's responsibility"

## Opinion text

ENOCH, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s judgment and parts I, II, III, IV(A), and V of the opinion. The focus of this case is on whether Pearce can assign his claim against his insurance company for breach of its duty to defend. The essence of Pearce’s claim is that had he been properly defended, he would have received a more favorable result in his lawsuit. This is analogous to a legal malpractice claim. Consequently, Zuniga v. Groce, Locke & Hebdon, 878 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, writ ref'd) resolves the question. The assignment of Pearce’s claim is invalid.
The Court, however, goes beyond this simple resolution. Its discussions in parts IV(B) and (C) move beyond criticism of assignments of claims in duty to defend cases and attack prejudgment assignments in insurance cases generally. Furthermore, the Court imports into its opinion language from H.S.M. Acquisitions, Inc. v. West, 917 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied), a case that does not involve an assignment of a chose in action. The Court need not enter into these additional discussions to resolve this case, and I am not confident that the conclusions implicit in these discussions are correct.
The Court’s judgment is correct. Thus, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679876. Public record. Not legal advice.