G a Life Ins v. Rodriguez

13 Citing cases

  1. Rockwood Ins. Co. v. Williamson

    596 F. Supp. 1524 (N.D. Tex. 1984)   Cited 3 times
    In Rockwood, the suit was against the claimant, and because it was based on a written contract, the four year statute of limitations applied.

    This provision has been interpreted as applying to insurance contracts made between Texas citizens and insurance companies doing business in Texas, but only when those contracts are made in the course of the company's Texas business. Butler v. Mutual Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 600 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1979). In General American Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.App. 1982), the Court applied Texas law over Missouri law. There, the original group policy was applied for and signed in Missouri.

  2. Heggy v. American Trading Employee Retirement Account Plan

    123 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 29 times
    In Heggy v. American Trading Emp. Ret. Acc. Plan, 123 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2003), the court noted that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 43 "a party who receives multiple claims to funds in its possession may join all claimants in one lawsuit and tender the disputed funds into the registry of the court.

    An innocent stakeholder is entitled to recover its attorney fees from the deposited funds if it has a reasonable doubt with respect to which claimant is entitled to the fund. United States v. Ray Thomas Gravel Co., 380 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Tex. 1964); Olmos, 857 S.W.2d at 741; Salazar v. San Benito Bank Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no writ); General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 268-69 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ). The innocent stakeholder must prove the reasonableness of the fees sought.

  3. Heggy v. American Trading

    110 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    An innocent stakeholder is entitled to recover its attorney fees from the deposited funds if it has a reasonable doubt with respect to which claimant is entitled to the fund. United States v. Ray Thomas Gravel Co., 380 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Tex. 1964); Olmos, 857 S.W.2d at 741; Salazar v. San Benito Bank Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no writ); General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 268-69 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ). The innocent stakeholder must prove the reasonableness of the fees sought.

  4. TV-3, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America

    28 F. Supp. 2d 407 (E.D. Tex. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Holding under Texas choice of law analysis that Mississippi, rather than Texas, law applies to bad faith insurance claim where contract negotiations, premium payments, and economic injury all occurred in Mississippi

    However, the Court distinguishes the instant case and Schroder because the employee in that case seeking benefits was a Texas resident and the Fifth Circuit also based its decision on a policy amendment after the insurer began doing business in Texas. The Court distinguishes Locomotive Eng. Cond. Mut. Prot. Ass'n v. Bush, 576 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1979), and General American Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982), for similar reasons. This Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit's holding in Grace that application of Texas law under Art. 21.42 is not warranted when the insured is a foreign corporation, regardless of whether or not it is doing business in Texas.

  5. F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.

    956 F. Supp. 701 (N.D. Tex. 1996)   Cited 2 times
    Listing Texas cases

    For example, waiver may be applied to avoid forfeiture where the insured fails to substantially comply with a notice or proof of loss requirement. E.g., General American Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 269 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ); Dairyland Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keys, 568 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In contrast, "Termination by receivership or takeover involves termination of the contract by a specified exogenous event that has nothing to do with the relationship between the insurer and the insured."

  6. Hefner v. Republic Indem. Co. of America

    773 F. Supp. 11 (S.D. Tex. 1991)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that article 21.42 of the insurance code is dispositive of the choice of law issue and applies if the insurance proceeds are payable to a Texas citizen; the policy is issued by a company doing business in Texas, and the policy arises in the course of the insurance company's business in Texas

    This court disagrees. For the statute to apply, the insurance proceeds must be payable to a Texas citizen, the policy must be issued by a company doing business in Texas, and the policy must arise in the course of the insurance company's Texas business. See Howell v. Am. Line Stock Ins. Co., 483 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1973); General American Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ). The Republic insurance contract was made and signed in California and is payable to Lasky, a California resident. Republic is not doing business within Texas, and this contract does not arise in the course of in-state business.

  7. In re Vartec Telecom, Inc.

    Adversary No. 07-03056 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    According to courts construing article 21.42, the statute applies to insurance contracts when three prongs are met: (1) the insurance proceeds are payable to a Texas citizen or inhabitant; (2) the policy is issued by an insurer doing business in Texas; and (3) the policy is issued in the course of the insurer's business in Texas. Investors Ins. Co. of America v. Breck Operating Corp., 2003 WL 21056849 at *3 (N.D. Tex. 2003); Hefner v. Republic Indem. Co. of America, 773 F.Supp. 11, 13 (S.D.Tex. 1991); General American Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ). Under the first prong, the insurance proceeds must be payable to a Texas citizen or entity.

  8. AMX Enterprises, L.L.P. v. Master Realty Corp.

    283 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 88 times
    Holding successful claimant may recover in-house counsel fees

    Id. (emphasis added) (citing Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 268 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ)). Moreover, in Foreman, the impleaded funds were $5,000, and the interpleader claimed $7,000 in attorney's fees.

  9. AMX ENTER. v. MASTER RLTY.

    No. 02-07-239-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2009)

    Id. (emphasis added) (citing Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 268 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ)). Moreover, in Foreman, the impleaded funds were $5,000, and the interpleader claimed $7,000 in attorney's fees.

  10. Broesche v. Jacobson

    218 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 42 times
    In Broesche, the trial court did partially base the sanctions it imposed on evidence that a legislator/attorney was hired for the purpose of delay. 218 S.W.3d at 276.

    We overrule Broesche's ninth issue. Broesche cites General American Life Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 641 S.W.2d 264, 268 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ), for the proposition that attorneys' fees are available only for the interpleader and not for defending a separate claim. That case involved an insurance company that interpleaded life insurance proceeds and also defended counterclaims and cross-claims for a separate pool of money involving accidental death benefits.