Ruiz v. Govt. Employ

37 Citing cases

  1. TIG Insurance v. Sedgwick James of Washington

    184 F. Supp. 2d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2001)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a certificate of insurance cannot create insurance coverage when the underlying policy does not provide for coverage"

    An insured has a duty to read the insurance policy and is charged with knowledge of its provisions. Ruiz v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, n.w.h.); Pankow v. Colonial Life Ins., 932 S.W.2d 271, 277 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, writ denied); Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699-700 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Under Texas law, an insurance agent generally has no duty to explain policy terms to an insured.

  2. Ranchers v. Stahlecker

    No. 09-10-00286-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 4, 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Recognizing Poly-America as controlling after considering Sanders

    "An insurance policy is a contract entered into between the parties whereby each party becomes bound by the terms of the agreement." Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.). When a party's suit is based on that agreement, the party "cannot enforce all of it except the arbitration clause."

  3. In re Farmers Ranchers

    No. 04-08-00128-CV (Tex. App. May. 21, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    An insurance policy is a contract entered into by the insurer and the insured and each party becomes bound by the terms of the agreement. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Crocker, 246 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Tex. 2008); Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.). As DeLeon's suit "is based on that [a]greement," he "cannot enforce all of it except the arbitration clause."

  4. Mauskar v. Hardgrove

    No. 14-02-00756-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 19, 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim accrued at the time he signed his insurance contract, which was when his agent made the allegedly negligent representation

    An insurance agent, however, has no duty to explain policy terms to an insured. Ruiz v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.); Garrison Contractors, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 296, 300 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996), aff'd, 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998); Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Texas Pac. Indem. Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied); Heritage Manor of Blaylock Props., Inc. v. Petersson, 677 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Instead, an insured has a duty to read the policy, and failing to do so, is charged with knowledge of the policy terms and conditions.

  5. Glenn v. L. Ray Calhoun & Co.

    83 F. Supp. 3d 733 (W.D. Tex. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    They correctly point out Texas courts have held “an insured has a duty to read the policy and, failing to do so, is charged with knowledge of the policy terms and conditions.”Ruiz v. Gov't Emp. Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.) ; Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Tex. Pac. Indem.

  6. Underwriters at Lloyds v. Turtle Creek Partnership

    716 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    When a court finds that an insurance contract is ambiguous, it will adopt the construction most favorable to the insured. Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1999, no pet.). Lloyds urges that the "Flood Warranty" provision ("flood provision") of the policy operates as an unambiguous warranty in the insurance context, and thus Turtle Creek had a duty to comply literally with its terms in order to receive coverage.

  7. Alabama Electric Coop. v. Bailey's Const

    950 So. 2d 280 (Ala. 2006)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding it unreasonable to rely on a certificate of insurance to confer coverage based on its disclaimer language

    "`A claim for misrepresentation can not stand when the party asserting the claim is legally charged with knowledge of the true facts.' Shindler v. Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co., 768 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, n.w.h.) (citing Sutton v. Grogan Supply Co., 477 S.W.2d 930, 935 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1972, no writ)). An insured has a duty to read the insurance policy and is charged with knowledge of its provisions. Ruiz v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, n.w.h.); Pankow v. ColonialLife Ins., 932 S.W.2d 271, 277 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, writ denied); Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699-700 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Under Texas law, an insurance agent generally has no duty to explain policy terms to an insured. Ruiz, 4 S.W.3d at 841.

  8. Vela v. Catlin Specialty Ins. Co.

    NUMBER 13-13-00475-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In Texas, an insurance policy is a contract entered into between the parties whereby each party becomes bound by the terms of the agreement. Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, no pet.). The certificate of insurance at issue in this case conspicuously states the following:

  9. Ins. Network v. Kloesel

    266 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the Texas Supreme Court has not held that an agent may be liable for "failing to disclose a policy's coverage limitations"

    Issue one is sustained. See Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.); Garrison Contractors, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 296, 300 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996), aff'd, 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998); Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Tex. Pac. Indem. Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied); Heritage Manor of Blaylock Props., Inc. v. Petersson, 677 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).May, 844 S.W.2d at 670 n. 10.

  10. FG HOLDINGS v. LONDON AM

    No. 09-05-522 CV (Tex. App. Dec. 13, 2007)

    The record reveals TGS did not review the policy when TGS received it. "An insured has a duty to read the policy and, failing to do so, is charged with knowledge of the policy terms and conditions." Ruiz v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.) (citing Garrison Contractors, 927 S.W.2d at 300); see also Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Tex. Pac. Indem. Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied); Heritage Manor of Blaylock Props., Inc. v. Petersson, 677 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). TGS failed to raise more than a scintilla of evidence that London American made a false statement of fact or had a duty to TGS to disclose any alleged omitted fact.