Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. Onebeacon Insurance Co.

267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. 2008)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. Onebeacon Insurance Co.

197 Citing cases

  1. VRV Development L.P. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

    630 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 72 times
    Applying Texas law and concluding that "we must focus on the time of the ‘actual physical damage’ to the property, and not the time of the ‘negligent conduct’ or the ‘process ... that later results in’ the damage" (quoting Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co. , 267 S.W.3d 20, 24, 29–30 (Tex. 2008) )

    Nearly all property damage will be traceable back to earlier events, but this is not the nature of our inquiry. As the Texas Supreme Court has instructed, we must focus on the time of the "actual physical damage" to the property, and not the time of the "negligent conduct" or the "process . . . that later results in" the damage. Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 24, 29-30 (Tex. 2008). It may be difficult at times to determine precisely when actual physical damage occurs, but we must draw a line somewhere.

  2. ONEBEACON INSU. CO. v. DON'S BUILDING

    553 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 10 times
    In OneBeacon Insurance Co. v. Don's Building Supply, Inc., 553 F.3d 901 (5th Cir.2008), the Fifth Circuit explained that it “overrule [d]... the relevant portion of Azrock ” based on a certified question sent to the Texas Supreme Court, which was decided in Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., 267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex.2008).

    The date that the physical damage is or could have been discovered is irrelevant under the policy.Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 24 (Tex. 2008) (alteration in original). In response to the second question, the Supreme Court held that:

  3. Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

    969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020)   Cited 14 times
    Segmenting the operations for which the insured was and was not hired

    2. This result is supported by Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co. , 267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. 2008). The question in that case was whether property damage "occurred" when synthetic stucco imperceptibly allowed water to seep into the walls, or later when the property damage became noticeable from wood rot.

  4. One Beacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp.

    2012 UT App. 100 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Favoring the intended place of performance at the time of contracting where there was “a discrepancy between the intended place of performance at the time of contracting and the actual place of performance”

    CGL insurance policies, In OneBeacon Insurance Co. v. Don's Building Supply, Inc., 553 F.3d 901 (5th Cir.2008), the Fifth Circuit explained that it “overrule [d] ... the relevant portion of Azrock ” based on a certified question sent to the Texas Supreme Court, which was decided in Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., 267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex.2008). See OneBeacon, 553 F.3d at 902–03 (citing Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Azrock Indus. Inc., 211 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir.2000)).

  5. Mitchell v. State

    No. 05-08-00184-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2009)

    It is well settled the general rules of contract construction apply to the interpretation and construction of insurance policies. See Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tex. 2008); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). Effectuating the parties' expressed intent is our primary concern.

  6. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp.

    No. 22-10107 (5th Cir. May. 22, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Texas courts apply the ordinary rules of contract interpretation to insurance policies. Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tex. 2008). Under those interpretive rules, a policy's "words and phrases" are "given their plain and ordinary meaning."

  7. Guideone Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fellowship at Forest Creek

    CAUSE NO.: AU-16-CA-597-SS (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2018)

    However, GuideOne has pointed to two recent cases which have held reasonableness should be determined solely with reference to the date on which the damage occurred. See Hamilton Props. v. Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:12-CV-5046-B, 2014 WL 3055801, at *8 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2014) (holding "'the date the physical damage is or could have been discovered is irrelevant under the policy'" (quoting Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 24 (Tex. 2008))); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Lowen Valley View, L.L.C., No. 3:16-CV-0465-B, 2017 WL 3115142, at *12 (N.D. Tex. July 21, 2017) (relying on Don's Bldg. Supply, 267 S.W.3d at 24). The reliance of Hamliton Properties and Certain Underwriters on Don's Building Supply is misplaced. Don's Building Supply held only that "[t]he date that the physical damage is or could have been discovered is irrelevant" for the purpose of determining whether the damage falls within the policy coverage period.

  8. Spurlock v. Beacon Lloyds Ins. Co.

    494 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing definitions of "premises" and concluding that term includes real property and buildings on that real property

    We construe insurance policies according to the same rules of construction that apply to contracts. Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tex.2008) ; Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crocker, 246 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Tex.2008). In applying these rules, our primary concern is to ascertain the parties' intent as expressed in the policy's language.

  9. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great American Lloyds Insurance Co.

    357 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    However, during the pendency of post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion rejecting the manifestation rule and adopting an “actual injury” approach. See Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 24–25 (2008). Under the “actual injury” approach, property damage “occurs” when actual physical damage takes place rather than when the damage manifests itself or becomes discoverable.

  10. Colony Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co.

    88 F.4th 1100 (5th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 475 F.3d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 2007)). Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tex. 2008) (citations omitted). Id.