Legal Opinion · Dissent

Betco Scaffolds Co. v. Houston United Casualty Insurance Co.

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided October 12, 2000No. 14-98-00179-CVPublished

1DissentPaul C. Murphy, Chief Justice

Because we believe that the inventory exclusion provision in Houston United’s “all-risk” insurance policy does not exclude Betco’s claim, we respectfully dissent.

In interpreting insurance contracts, two points are well-established. First, the contract is construed against the insurer and liberally in favor of finding coverage for the insured. See Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 879 S.W.2d 920, 929 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ) (citing Barnett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex.1987). This is especially true when construing exclusions or…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Hudson Energy Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Balandran v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Barnett v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Penrod Drilling Corp. v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. VaughanTexas Supreme Court · 1998

13 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