Legal Opinion

Rodriquez v. Texas Farmers Insurance Co.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)

Decided August 30, 1995No. 07-94-0356-CVPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REYNOLDS, Chief Justice.

Texas Farmers Insurance Company secured declarations, via summary judgment, that it had no duty to defend Orlando Rodriquez and Lydia Rodriquez under its insurance policy issued to them, or to indemnify or pay on their behalf any sums they were obligated to pay David A. Ortega and Rita Ortega for claims resulting in a default judgment against the Rodriquezes. The Rodri-quezes and the Ortegas contend, with five points of error, that questions of fact exist to vitiate the summary judgment. Based upon the rationale and authorities expressed, we will affirm the judgment.

The…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Gibbs v. General Motors CorporationTexas Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Brownlee v. BrownleeTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Harwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Air Park-Dallas Zoning Committee v. Crow-Billingsley Airpark, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2003
  2. Harris v. Balderas, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2000
  3. Mathis v. Bocell, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998
  4. Oram v. State Farm Lloyds, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1998
  5. Martin v. Durden, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1997

26 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