Legal Opinion · Dissent

Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District v. St. Paul Insurance Co.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

Decided January 18, 1990No. 13-88-318-CVPublished

1DissentNye, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. I believe that St. Paul had a duty to defend the Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District after its trustees were dismissed from the suit. Without question, the District is the named insured under the policy. I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that *613the insurance policy “undisputedly” insures only the trustees.

The record reflects that St. Paul, in response to interrogatory number four, stated that the District is the named insured under the policy. Based on St. Paul’s response, the District supplemented its summary judgment motion. St. Paul then…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Love v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Thomas v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975
  4. Watts v. Double Oak Independent School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
  5. University Interscholastic League v. Midwestern UniversityTexas Supreme Court · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API