holding that an insured was forced to assume the burden of legal action to recover the full benefit of the insurance contract even though the insurer submitted several payments before and during litigation
How later courts described this case
- holding that an insured was forced to assume the burden of legal action to recover the full benefit of the insurance contract even though the insurer submitted several payments before and during litigation
- predicting that Texas law would apply the notice-prejudice rule to notice-of-loss provision in property insurance policy
- stating that “without an award of compensatory damages, there can be no award of punitive damages”
- “[W]e hold that where an insurer has been found to have violated the UTPA due to delay or refusal to pay benefits in breach of the insurance contract, damages resulting from that violation may be considered compensatory damages under the UTPA for purposes of pursuing punitive damages.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE RICE,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶126 I join Paragraphs 90-121 of Justice McKinnon’s concurringand dissenting opinion regarding the reasonable basis of law defense, the notice-prejudice rule, and attorney fees for the estate.