Conoco, Inc. v. Republic Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Texas law and holding a post-loss assignment of benefits was invalid because the insurance policy contained an \unambiguous no-assignment clause\
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument that it was not assigned a “claim or demand” but “proceeds”
• “Texas law permits the enforcement of no-assignment clauses in insurance policies.”
• “In an indemnity contract, . . . the insurer agrees to reimburse expenses to the insured that the insured is liable to pay and has paid.” (quoting Cont’l Oil Co. v. Bonanza Corp., 677 F.2d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 1982))
• enforcing anti-assignment provision in insurance contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).