Hofland v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
YÁÑEZ, Justice.
This ease arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage. The trial court held that La Joya Gin, Inc. (La Joya) was not covered by the insurance policy; therefore, the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify La Joya. By three points of error, La Joya and Larry Hofland appeal from this declaratory judgment. We affirm.
Appellants, Hofland and La Joya, initiated this lawsuit against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) as a result of FFIC’s refusal to defend and indemnify La Joya for a judgment entered against it in a separate lawsuit filed by Filiberto and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Coker v. CokerTexas Supreme Court · 1983
- Forbau Ex Rel. Miller v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
- Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. DanielTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
- Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Pegasus Energy Group, Inc. v. Cheyenne Petroleum Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1999
- America's Favorite Chicken Co. v. Samaras, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1996
- Harlingen Irrigation District Cameron County No. 1 v. Caprock Communications Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2001
- In Re Godt, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
- City of Corpus Christi v. Taylor, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2004
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.