# Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Ass'n v. Council of Co-Owners of Saida II Towers Condominium Ass'n

> Texas Supreme Court · March 5, 1986 · 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778084

## Case

- **Full name:** TEXAS CATASTROPHE PROPERTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION Et Al., Petitioners, v. COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS OF SAIDA II TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 5, 1986
- **Citations:** 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 257; 706 S.W.2d 644; 1986 Tex. LEXIS 532
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gonzalez
- **Judges:** Hill, Gonzalez
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 412 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778084

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting when the Legislature creates an administrative agency, it may also prescribe rules and regulations governing the administrative body and the method by which the rights determined by such body will be enforced, including the procedures for obtaining judicial review of fi…
- noting that the predecessor to the Association served the purpose of making windstorm insurance available in designated portions of Texas where the risk of hurricane was great

## Opinion text

GONZALEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
I concur with the court’s holding that the property owner’s claim to insurance benefits derive from statute and not common law. However, I would apply prospectively the holding that Tex.Ins.Code Ann. arts. 1.04(f) and 21.49, § 9, along with Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a, § 19(b) be read together to determine jurisdictional prerequisites for appeal.
Neither art. 1.04(f) nor art. 21.49, § 9 provides claimants with notice of any filing time limits. There are no cross references in either article to the APTRA, § 19(b). Further, until now, no case has applied § 19(b)’s thirty-day time limit to this area of the law. Under these circumstances, I would not deny respondents their day in court.
As § 19(b) is now considered as an additional procedural prerequisite for jurisdiction, aggrieved parties must be meticulous in their preparation for an agency appeal. Reference must be made to the APTRA for concurrent or cumulative procedural prerequisites for statutory schemes, unless contrary intent appears in the enabling statute. See art. 6252-13a, § 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778084. Public record. Not legal advice.