Continental Mut. Fire Ins. v. Walles

2 Citing cases

  1. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chance

    582 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    Plaintiff contends she was entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to the provisions of Tex.Ins Code Ann. art. 3.62 (Vernon 1972). This court, in Continental Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Walles, 20 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1929, no writ), held that Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4736 (Vernon 1925) which is now Tex.Ins Code Ann. art. 3.62 (Vernon 1951), Insurance Code, does not apply to fire insurance companies and attorney fees could not be recovered upon a fire policy. The general rule of law in this state is that, unless provided for by statute or by contract between the parties, attorney fees incurred by a party to litigation are not recoverable against his adversary in tort or by suit upon a contract. Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1964); Heard v. City of Houston, 529 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1975, no writ). Plaintiff has not cited any authority, and we have found none that would authorize the recovery for attorney fees in a suit upon a fire insurance policy.

  2. Franklin Fire Co. v. Singletary

    74 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Civ. App. 1934)   Cited 2 times

    In support of our holding we cited, among other cases, the following: Queen Ins. Co. v. Jefferson Ice Co., 64 Tex. 578; Delaware Underwriters Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Brock, 109 Tex. 425, 211 S.W. 779; Southern Underwriters v. Jones (Tex.Civ.App.) 13 S.W.2d 435 (error refused) — to which authorities we now add Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Strayhorn (Tex.Com.App.) 211 S.W. 447, and Springfield Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App.) 13 S.W.2d 916. In the case of Continental Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Walles (Tex.Civ.App.) 20 S.W.2d 405, the Beaumont court stated that, when the subject of the insurance is not personal property, and the loss is total, the insured is entitled to interest on the amount of the policy from the date of the loss. No authority is cited supporting such statement, and it is in conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court above cited.