Henry v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc.

    75 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 57 times
    Stating that "this court and Texas courts have held that substantial compliance with an insurance policy notice requirement will suffice," and holding that failure to forward suit papers as required in policy was excused where insured "substantially complied with the notice requirement by apprising [the insurer] in writing of the essential allegations of the underlying suits"

    For example, courts have held that substantial compliance with policy requirements that an insured provide proof of loss to the insured is all that is required. First Nat'l Bank of Bowie v. Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York, 634 F.2d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1981) (applying Texas law); Henry v. Aetna Casualty and Sur. Co., 633 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keys, 568 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

  2. Turrill v. Life Ins. Co. of North America

    753 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 12 times
    Applying Texas law

    Texas law requires only substantial compliance with the proof of loss provisions of an insurance contract. E.g., Henry v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 633 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.Ct.App. — Texarkana, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Although interpretation of an unambiguous contract raises purely legal questions that a court may resolve as a matter of law, e.g., Carpenters Amended and Restated Health Benefit Fund v. Holleman Construction Co., 751 F.2d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 1985), whether a party has substantially complied with the terms of the contract presents a pure question of fact that the trier of fact alone may decide. We accordingly decline LINA's invitation to weigh the summary judgment evidence.

  3. AMLIN CORPORATE MEMBER v. LOGISTICS GROUP INT

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-2695 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2011)

    This e-mail clearly shows that Dunlap Trucking had notified Logistics Group of the loss before July 29. Texas courts do not strictly enforce the requirement of a written proof of loss in the insurance context when the insured communicates the substance of the claim to the insurer. See, e.g., Henry v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 633 S.W.2d 583, 584-85 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The conclusory affidavits Logistics Group submitted on the issue do not create a disputed fact issue.

  4. PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance Co.

    243 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. 2008)   Cited 129 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the timely notice provision was not an essential part of the bargained-for exchange under PAJ's occurrence-based policy"

    243 S.W.3d at 636.See Bituminous Cos. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., 75 F.3d 1048, 1056 (5th Cir.1996) (stating that "this court and Texas courts have held that substantial compliance with an insurance policy notice requirement will suffice," and holding that failure to forward suit papers as required in policy was excused where insured "substantially complied with the notice requirement by apprising [the insurer] in writing of the essential allegations of the underlying suits"); Bekins Moving Storage Co. v. Williams, 947 S.W.2d 568, 576 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, no writ) (recognizing that "proof of loss and notice of claim are conditions precedent to recovery on the policy," but that "a claimant may still recover upon jury findings supporting theories of waiver or substantial compliance"); Henry v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 633 S.W.2d 583, 584-85 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that failure to comply with written proof of claim requirement was excused because insured substantially complied with requirement when he had his mother report particulars of accident to insurance agent, who prepared written report on insurer's own form); Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keys, 568 S.W.2d 457, 458-59 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding, where insurer complained that insured failed to give the proper notice of proof of loss in accordance with the terms of the policy," that insured substantially complied with policy when he went to agent's office and filled out a form providing particulars of loss); Austin Bldg. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 403 S.W.2d 499, 505-06 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that insured substantially complied with policy requirement that it provide sworn proof of claim, where insured provided unsworn proof of claim to insurer's agent and communicated with adjuster regarding particulars of loss)

  5. Hous. Auth. of Alice v. Tex. Mun. League Self-Ins. Fund

    No. 04-17-00465-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the Housing Authority fell short of proving breached contract since it "did not conclusively establish compliance with the proof of loss provision, which is a condition precedent to the ... ability to bring suit against the Fund"

    Relying on the decision in Henry v. Aetna, the Housing Authority concludes this demonstrates there was substantial compliance with the purpose of the proof of loss provision as a matter of law. See Henry v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 683 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e). To the extent the Housing Authority appears to argue the Fund waived the proof of loss requirement, that issue is not before this court and will not be addressed.

  6. First Southwest Lloyds Insurance Co. v. MacDowell

    769 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App. 1989)   Cited 31 times
    Holding trial court properly excluded fire marshal's report because it contained another witness's account of the fire that did not fit within a hearsay exception

    The MacDowells were not required to formally label the inventory a proof of loss. See Henry v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 633 S.W.2d 583 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The MacDowells supplied First Southwest with sufficient information to evaluate their claim and thereby substantially complied with the proof of loss requirement.