Legal Opinion · Dissent

Venture Encoding Service, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 1, 2003No. 2-02-020-CVPublished

1Dissent

*738JOHN CAYCE,

Chief Justice, dissenting.

I dissent to the court’s opinion denying appellee’s motion for rehearing. I would grant the motion and affirm the trial court’s summary judgment because Exclusion “1” of the printer’s E & 0 form specifically excludes from coverage replacement costs due to the insured’s faulty workmanship.

The clear and unambiguous intent of Exclusion “1” is to preclude from coverage replacement costs incurred by Venture Encoding Service Inc.’s faulty workmanship. This type of “business risk” exclusion is common in liability policies, the purpose of which is to “provide…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gulf Insurance Company v. Parker Products, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Travelers Insurance Co. v. VolentineCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  3. Hartford Casualty Company v. Aubrey R. Cruse, IIICourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  4. T.C. Bateson Construction Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1989
  5. Sarabia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1988

2 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