Weiser-Brown Operating Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that recovery under Chapter 542 requires showing “that the insurer is liable for the claim”
• finding that retaining an expert to conduct a second inspection “demonstrates an effort on [the insurer’s] part to obtain an expert opinion on a complicated coverage issue”
• holding insurer cannot avoid liability under Texas’s Prompt Payment of Claims Act “by pointing after-the-fact to missing information, the absence of 21 which did not affect the insurer’s decision
• explaining that a plaintiff may recover interest under the Insurance Code’s prompt payment statute where the plaintiff establishes “(1) a claim under an insurance policy; (2) that the insurer is liable for the claim; and (3
• affirming grant of judgment as a matter of law where “[t]he evidence presented at trial … established a bona fide coverage dispute”
• finding an insurance claims handling expert’s testimony was conclusory when based on the expert’s own untestable view of custom and practice in the industry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).