Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Texas Windstorm Insurance Ass'n

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided October 30, 2003No. 09-03-276 CVPublished

1DissentDon Burgess, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds Article 21.49, section 9A(b) is a mandatory venue statute. Tex. Ins.Code Ann. art. 21.49, § 9A(b) (Vernon Supp.2003). I disagree. In 1991, the Legislature amend*826ed the Catastrophe Property Insurance Pool Act (Act) by amending Section 9 and adding Section 9A (the new section includes the provision at issue in this case). Act of June 6, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 242, § 11.37, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 939, 1070.

In relevant part, prior to the 1991 amendments a party aggrieved by a decision under the Act had the following remedies:

Sec. 9. Any person insured…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Helena Chemical Co. v. WilkinsTexas Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Herschbach v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1994
  3. Chiriboga v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2003
  4. Langdeau v. Burke Investment CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Rowden v. Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Ass'n, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1984

4 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