in Re Essex Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mandamus relief is only available when \there is no other adequate remedy by law\
• recognizing that “[i]n Texas, the general rule . . . is that an injured party cannot sue the tortfeasor's insurer directly until the tortfeasor's liability has been finally determined by agreement or judgment.”
• holding that allowing injured third party to pursue claims simultaneously against the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s insurer in the same suit would prejudice both the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s insurer in their defenses against the injured third party’s claims
• stating that the policy reasons for the no-direct-action rule apply regardless of whether the plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief or money damages from the insurer
• stating that the policy reasons for the no-direct-action rule apply regardless of whether the plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief or money damages from the insurer
• holding, in suit against both the tortfeasor and its insurer, no direct action rule applies to declaratory judgment claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).