Legal Opinion

Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 2003No. 02-0100PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We deny the motion for rehearing. We withdraw our opinion of February 6, 2003, and substitute the following in its place.

We deny the petition for review. The court of appeals concluded that Timothy Austin’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is not barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Austin, 65 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 2001). We agree. See, e.g., Am. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 97 S.W.3d 679, 684-85 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet. h.); Cigna Ins. Co. v. Evans, 847 S.W.2d 417, 422-23 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, no writ); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pettyjohn,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Cigna Ins. Co. of Texas v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
  3. AMERICAN CAS. CO. OF READ., PENN. v. Martin, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2003
  4. Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2001
  5. United States Fire Insurance Co. v. PettyjohnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Andrew Patterson v. Transcontinental Insurance Company, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2015
  2. in Re Sonic Systems International Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006

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

Powered by the Exa API