Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.

    533 F. Supp. 3d 466 (S.D. Tex. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Sentry provides undisputed argument, and the Court accepts, that Sentry's step down provision accomplishes one of the aims of Texas Insurance Code §§ 1952.251 and 1952.252, which is that "permissive users of garage vehicles are guaranteed only the minimum auto liability limits, and only to the extent that the permissive user does not have sufficient insurance on his own to meet the minimum liability limits required by law." (Dkt. No. 32 at pp. 8-9); accordSentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. , 994 F. Supp. 2d 789, 807-08 (E.D. Tex. 2013), aff'd , 582 F. App'x 284 (5th Cir. 2014). Since, for the reasons discussed supra , Ramirez has "other insurance [the Home State policy] applicable to the ‘accident’ " giving rise to the Ortiz plaintiffs’ suit against him, and that policy indisputably insures him up to the minimum liability limits required by Texas law, Sentry's step down provision relieves it of any obligation to provide primary coverage to Ramirez as a permissive user. (Dkt. No. 32 at p. 13). These sections provide as follows:

  2. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp.

    640 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2022)   Cited 46 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Explaining scope of exception to the eight corner rule in duty to defend cases

    See, e.g.,Star-Tex Res., L.L.C. v. Granite State Ins. Co. , 553 F. App'x 366, 372–73 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering extrinsic evidence that the insured's employee was operating the car that caused the plaintiff's injuries and concluding an auto-exclusion exception barred coverage); Nabors Drilling Techs. USA Inc. v. Deepwell Energy Servs. LLC , ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2021 WL 4924758, at *15–16 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2021) (considering extrinsic evidence regarding the terms of a master service agreement to determine whether that agreement was an "insured contract" as defined under the policy); Hallmark Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co. , 283 F. Supp. 3d 559, 567–68 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (considering extrinsic evidence regarding the length of a lease agreement to determine that an automobile was not a covered auto under a policy endorsement); Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. , 994 F. Supp. 2d 789, 810 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (considering extrinsic evidence about the purpose for which the insured had given permission for an employee to drive the insured's car to determine whether the driver was an employee or a customer under the policy); Millis Dev. & Constr., Inc. v. Am. First Lloyd's Ins. Co. , 809 F. Supp. 2d 616, 631 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (allowing extrinsic evidence regarding the timing of various subcontracts to determine when a worker would have been covered as an additional insured). Today, we expressly approve the practice of considering extrinsic evidence in duty-to-defend cases to which Avalos does not apply.