Legal Opinion · Dissent

Parkans International LLC v. Zurich Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided August 5, 2002No. 01-20106Published

1DissentDennis, Circuit Judge

To the detriment of the insured, the majority gives the terms of this insurance policy their technical, rather than popular, meaning. Because this method of interpretation contravenes established canons of Texas insurance law, I respectfully dissent.

I

The threshold question is whether Par-kans’s letter of credit is a “covered instrument.” The policy defines covered instruments as:

Checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, orders or directions to pay a sum certain in “money” that are:

3. Made or drawn by or drawn upon [Parkans];

4. Made or drawn by one acting as [Parkans’s]…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Western Reserve Life Insurance v. MeadowsTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Ramsay v. Maryland American General Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Mescalero Energy, Inc. v. Underwriters Indemnity General Agency, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2001

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