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.
"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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
"`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.
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:
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.
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.