Beasley v. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Beasley

    598 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2020)   Cited 95 times
    Explaining that the fact a plaintiff may ultimately not prevail on the merits does not deprive the plaintiff of standing

    The court of appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff's allegation in his petition that the PIP insurer breached the terms of the PIP policy was sufficient to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. 578 S.W.3d 98, 105–06 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, pet. granted). We disagree with the court of appeals and conclude that the plaintiff is unable to show that he suffered any actual or threatened harm as a result of the PIP insurer's payments under the PIP policy.

  2. Allen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

    NO. 01-20-00305-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2020)

    The trial court had concluded that Beasley did not suffer any threatened or actual harm and dismissed Beasley's suit for lack of standing, but the intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the allegation in Beasley's petition "that the PIP insurer breached the terms of the PIP policy was sufficient to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction." Id. at 238 (citing Beasley v. Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 578 S.W.3d 98, 106-06 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018), rev'd, 598 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2020)). In the Texas Supreme Court, Beasley asserted that his case was distinguishable from Forth.