concluding that insured met summary-judgment burden to show that insurer “had no reasonable basis for its refusal to pay his [UIM] claim and with actual knowledge of that, forced 15 him to a trial on the accident before it would pay the claim”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that insured met summary-judgment burden to show that insurer “had no reasonable basis for its refusal to pay his [UIM] claim and with actual knowledge of that, forced 15 him to a trial on the accident before it would pay the claim”
- recognizing that both a breach-of-contract claim on an insurance policy and a claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing can be brought by insured
- holding that “exemplary damages and mental anguish damages are recoverable for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the same principles allowing recovery of those damages in other tort actions ”
- stating that nominal damages are appropriate where a plaintiff shows "actual loss or injury" but fails to prove "the extent and amount of damages"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Aranda v. Insurance Co. of North America, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 279 (1988)
Aranda overruled Arnold
The opinion
GONZALEZ, Justice,
concurring.
I concur. I believe that the elements of this cause of action are: (1) a contract between the insurer and the insured; (2) the insurer denied the insured’s claim or delayed in payment; and (3)(a) the insurer knew that it had no reasonable basis for denying the claim or delaying in payment; or (b) the insurer failed to determine whether there was any reasonable basis for the denial or delay.