Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC Logo
Home > About > Reported Cases > Insurance


Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. LP v. Kingwood, No. 14–08–00329–CV, 2011 WL 2040394 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.). (Impracticability)
A vendor's letter to the title insurer, which disclosed information that contributed to derailment of a transaction, does not negate the “without-fault” element of impracticability if the jury could reasonably determine the letter was not misleading and that, even absent a legal duty to disclose, the vendor was reasonable to possess concern that failure to disclose could lead to unreasonable difficulty, loss, or risk of injury. A vendor does not assume the risk of impracticability of contract provision that required it to have title insurer furnish a title policy without annexation exception because the contract also outlined a scheme to cure incorrect actions by the third party. Situations that are unable to be cured according to the scheme outlined in the provision are subject to impracticability.

Loper v. Dufrene, 84 F. App’x. 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curium) (not designated for publication) (applying Texas law). (UIM Coverage)
When an employer contracts with a company to provide transportation services, a van operated by the company is not considered leased because the employer does not have exclusive use or control of the van. Therefore, it is not “covered auto” under the uninsured motorist provision of the employer's automobile insurance policy.