Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Continental Casualty Co. v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 26, 2003No. 01-02-00449-CVPublished

1Concurrence

EVELYN V. KEYES,

Justice, concurring.

The majority holds that Fina was never an additional insured under A & B’s insurance policies. Because I believe established law requires us to find that Fina became an additional insured under on A & B’s GCL policy on August 18, 1997, when the certificate of insurance naming Fina as an additional insured was issued by Continental, four days after Wisdom’s injury, I concur in the judgment only.

I. Continental’s Appeal

The Additional Insured Endorsement provided with A & B’s Continental insurance policies states that a person or organization becomes an…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Balandran v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. George E. Gibbons & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Hubacek v. Ennis State BankTexas Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. McKeeTexas Supreme Court · 1997

17 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